Clive Palmer’s donations under court scrutiny

Queensland Labor raised questions with the Electoral Commission about whether Clive Palmer should be classed as a property developer and prohibited donor.

Clive Palmer. Picture: Alix Sweeney

Queensland Labor raised questions with the Electoral Commission of Queensland during the October election campaign about whether Clive Palmer should be classed as a property developer and prohibited donor in an ­unsuccessful bid to rein in the billionaire’s advertising blitz.

Labor insiders told The Australian that Labor approached the ECQ with concerns about the ­status of Mr Palmer’s companies as donors, and whether the businessman himself should be declared a property developer under the Electoral Act.

Under Queensland law, it is ­illegal for property developers to make political donations and for parties to accept them. People found to have knowingl­y circumvented the ban face a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail.

The ECQ said it could not comment on the matter during the campaign, but it has since lodged an application in the ­Supreme Court seeking a judge’s ruling as to whether or not Mr Palmer is a banned donor.

Labor state secretary Julie-Ann Campbell declined to comment on Thursday.

An investigation by The Australian in October revealed Mr Palmer’s company Palmer Leisure Australia had submitted two applications to develop landholdings on the Gold Coast.

Mr Palmer’s companies don­at­ed millions of dollars this year to his United Australia Party, which outspent Labor and the LNP on advertis­ing in the lead-up to the October 31 poll.

Mr Palmer has rejected the characterisation that he is a property developer, insisting his main business is mining, not real estate, and that he had not lodged a new development application since the ban on developer donations became law.

In a statement to The Australian, the ECQ said it had sought the determination before considering possible further action.

“There are particular features of the definition of property developer­ which, in the circumstances of this corporation (Palmer Leisure Australia) and its activities, led the commissioner to consider it was prudent to seek a declaration from the court … ­before considering whether any com­pliance action is necessary,’’ the commission statement reads.