The Palaszczuk Government’s Bill to limit political donations and election spending will have the unintended consequence of silencing charities and community groups unless it is amended, legal, human rights and civil society groups told a parliamentary committee.
The Human Rights Law Centre last week released expert advice by a team of Queensland barristers led by Stephen Keim SC that warns that the Palaszczuk Government’s proposed changes to Queensland electoral laws could face a High Court challenge.
Spokespersons for key community sectors commented:
Alice Drury, Senior Lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre
Alice Drury, said the proposed law is well-intentioned, but contains serious flaws in the way it would lock out community groups, charities and other not-for-profits from election debates.
“It’s critical that charities and local community groups are able to engage in election debates on the work they do, whether it’s about women’s rights, stopping gambling harm or protecting the environment. We’ve been warning that this proposed legislation will muzzle those vital voices. Now there are expert Queensland barristers concluding that the proposed laws could breach the Australian Constitution and be invalid,” said Ms Drury.
Louise Mattheison, Director of the Queensland Conservation Council,
Louise Mattheison, said that the Bill would constrict the ability of conservation groups across the State to speak up for Queensland’s unique and beautiful environment.
“We strongly support the intentions behind the proposed legislation to bring greater accountability and integrity to Queensland’s electoral system, however, this Bill will unintentionally silence community organisations doing important advocacy work to protect our state’s beautiful animals, plants, reefs and forests.”
Rev David Baker, Moderator of the Uniting Church in Australia, Queensland Synod
Rev David Baker, raised profound concerns about the proposed law and the process the government has used.
“This Bill was released in late November, limiting the capacity of the general public to make a fulsome response. I also view the Bill, in its current form, as a constraint on freedom of speech, a cornerstone of our Australian society.”
Mark Henley, CEO, Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS)
Mark Henley, said there could be serious consequences for community organisations and their ability to take part in public advocacy.
“Social service and community organisations play a critical role in the public policy debate in Australia, and their contributions are essential to the robust functioning of democracy. Community-based organisations are in a unique position to hear and represent the voices of Queenslanders who experience the most disadvantage. This is important to a strong democracy.”
New laws will muzzle the voice of the people
The proposed laws will impose onerous compliance obligations on any community group or charity that spends more than $1,000 on election advocacy with criminal penalties for non-compliance. The proposed laws will also stop someone from donating more than $4,000 per four-year term (or less than $20 per week) to a charity or community group for election-related advocacy. As a result, charities and community groups will struggle to raise funds to speak out in elections on the matters they work on.
In contrast, corporations will not face any restrictions on the income they can use on campaigning, and will be able to spend up to $1 million each on election advertising.
President of Redlands2030, Steve MacDonald, joined the criticism of the proposed new laws saying (the new laws) “are just not a fair go for the community and are not in the public interest!”.
He called on MPs from across Redland City to tell the Premier to “look again’ at the proposed laws because as it stands the laws will muzzle the voice of the people.’
Redlands2030 – 21 January 2020
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
One Comment
Unintended consequence of silencing community groups at election time? The submitters most likely were being diplomatic. The Government has legal draftsmen and draftswomen who are highly skilled. They draft what they are told the Government wants. The Government also has a myriad of other legal and policy advisors.
More likely, over the holiday period, they were trying to get away with draconian legislation to shut up community groups who might communicate the truth to voters at election time e.g. in South Brisbane – Jackie Trad’s seat – about issues such as the proposed Toondah rort and her suspicious decisions favouring Walker Corporation.
This attempt to silence people reminds me of the extreme Newman Government and we know what Queenslanders did with that Government. Amend the proposed legislation Anastasia, or face the same consequences!