Clive Palmer wins first blow in case over donations

The Electoral Commission of Queensland will be forced to submit a formal statement of claim in its bid to have Palmer Leisure declared a property developer and therefore a prohibited donor.

Clive Palmer. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

The Electoral Commission of Queensland will be forced to submit a formal statement of claim in its bid to have Clive Palmer’s company, Palmer Leisure, declared a property developer and therefore a prohibited donor.

The matter is being fought in the Supreme Court in a test for the Palaszczuk government’s laws banning property developers from donating to political parties.

Mr Palmer’s lawyers had argued the case, should be thrown out of court for an “abuse of process” or that the Electoral Commission should be forced to state its case in a formal statement of claim.

In a hearing in the Supreme Court in Brisbane on Tuesday, Justice Peter Callaghan agreed, saying the case would need to proceed via a statement of claim.

The ECQ’s application to the court followed an investigation by The Australian which revealed Palmer Leisure had submitted development applications to the Gold Coast council.

The company, directed by Mr Palmer, made has made several donations to Mr Palmer’s United Australia Party, which ran 55 candidates at the October 31 state election.

The party’s multimillion-dollar campaign was funded by Mr Palmer and his network of corporate entities.

Justice Callaghan ordered the ECQ to submit a statement of claim within two weeks.

During the hearing, lawyers for the ECQ and Palmer Leisure hinted at how they would argue their case if it went to trial.

Following Palaszczuk government amendments in 2018, the Electoral Act defines a property developer as: “a corporation engaged in a business that regularly involves the making of relevant planning applications by or on behalf of the corporation”.

Barrister Peter Dunning, representing Palmer Leisure, said the electoral commission had provided evidence of just one planning application made by Palmer Leisure and had not proved that it submitted such applications “regularly”.

He said that if the matter proceeded to trial, his client would claim the money exchanged between Palmer Leisure and the UAP was a”gift” instead of a donation.

Barrister Gim Del Villar, representing the ECQ, used the example of a company established to make just one major property development as an example of an entity that would not make regular planning applications itself but would still be considered a property developer.