Watchdog claimed Clive Palmer was a developer ahead of election

Ahead of the state election, Queensland’s election watchdog said it had formed the ‘preliminary view’ that Clive Palmer was a property developer and a ‘prohibited donor’.

Clive Palmer. Picture: Alix Sweeney

Queensland’s election watchdog warned Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party 11 days before the October 31 state election that it had formed the “preliminary view” the billionaire, whose companies had poured millions of dollars into party coffers, was a property developer and a “prohibited donor”.

In an email to UAP agent Chitondo Mashayanyika on October 20, Electoral Commission of Queensland director of compliance Matthew Thurlby alerted him to the characterisation and said any money donated to the party by Mr Palmer or his company Palmer Leisure Australia should be “quarantined”.

The email outraged UAP party members, who questioned its timing so close to the election and raised concerns the statutory body was acting with a “political purpose”.

The exchange was revealed in court documents filed in the Supreme Court this week as part of an application for a judge to declare that Mr Palmer, via his company, is a property developer.

The ECQ was alerted to the issue after an investigation by The Australian revealed Mr Palmer and Palmer Leisure had previously submitted development applications to the Gold Coast City Council.

Under Queensland’s Electoral Act, it is illegal for property developers to make political donations and for parties to accept them, with people found to have knowingly circumvented the ban facing a maximum penalty of 10 years’ jail or a $195,825 fine.

Mr Palmer insists 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 2018.

In the email sent to Mr Mashayanyika, who is a director of Mr Palmer’s mining company Mineralogy, Mr Thurlby listed nine donations worth a total of $82,000 from Mr Palmer and Palmer Leisure. He said property developers were banned under the Electoral Act and the ban extended to “close associates” of a corporation involved in property developments, which could be identified through submission of planning applications.

“It is the preliminary view of the Electoral Commission of Queensland that the donations outlined in the above table are from property developers,” Mr Thurlby wrote.

The letter described a development application made by Palmer Leisure in May 2015 to develop a “high density neighbourhood” for commercial and residential purposes on the Gold Coast.

Mr Mashayanyika was given two days to disagree, in writing, with the commission’s finding that Mr Palmer and Palmer Leisure were property developers.

He was also asked to “quarantine, that is, set aside and DO NOT USE” the donations from Mr Palmer and Palmer Leisure.

On October 21, Mr Mashayanyika wrote back to the ECQ, disagreeing with the allegations.

“Your letter and its preliminary determinations are made without proper process and are misconceived,” Mr Mashayanyika wrote.

He argued the definition of a property developer in the Electoral Act required “regular” submission of development applications and that the ECQ had only identified on application made in 2015.

He also raised the timing of the ECQ’s notice relative to the state election.

“I find it difficult to understand why you have written to me about an application made in 2015 by PLA (Palmer Leisure) in the last few days of a State Election taking place in 2020 and sought to restrict our party from dealing with legitimate declared donations,” Mr Mashayanyika wrote.

“There is a concern by certain party members that, given the remoteness of the 2015 application to 2020, your letter may have been written for a political purpose.”

Mr Palmer’s companies donated millions of dollars this year to his United Australia Party.