Queensland and the Return of Developer Donations

Today, I read an article on MSN, via ABC News Brisbane, reporting that the Queensland Government has introduced legislation to lift a ban that previously prevented property developers from making political donations, including donations to Queensland councils. Other Australian states recognise, based on ethical and common-sense principles, that allowing property developers to donate to councils creates serious conflicts of interest, particularly where rezoning and planning approvals are involved. Restrictions on property developer political donations have also been upheld as constitutionally valid by the High Court of Australia in comparable cases, reinforcing the legitimacy of such bans.
When corruption in Queensland is discussed, those familiar with the state’s history often point to the Bjelke-Petersen era of the 1970s and 1980s, as its foundation. I would go further and argue that corruption did not begin in that period but rather became publicly visible then. The Bjelke-Petersen years effectively gave Queensland corruption a date stamp, even though widespread corruption had existed long before, likely dating back to the colonial era.
​
Queensland increasingly behaves more like a separate country than a state within Australia. It never truly embraced federation in practice, and the Queensland Government does not meaningfully answer to federal authority. This lack of accountability affects the entire nation. Housing prices are artificially inflated, particularly at the expense of younger generations and those who do not own homes and are already struggling with rent. 
At the same time, developers will now be permitted to legally and publicly donate money to councillors. Many have long suspected that similar influence existed behind closed doors during the ban, with ordinary people ultimately bearing the cost.

These issues extend beyond politics into the legal system itself. Queensland’s Supreme Court and legal services sector operate with limited effective oversight, regulated by bodies that often appear to protect the legal profession of which they are a part, rather than serve the public interest. Queensland is also the only Australian state without an upper house of parliament, leaving it without a key layer of legislative scrutiny and accountability. The system resembles a school with no principal and no independent oversight from the education department.

Policy decisions that favour developers have contributed to inflated housing prices, with many ordinary Queenslanders bearing the consequences. For a significant portion of the lower-income population, there is little recourse or protection, reinforcing a political culture in which dissent is discouraged and accountability is rare.

It is also important to note that the Planning and Environment Court, which hears challenges to council decisions and oversees rezoning and development matters across Queensland, is based in Brisbane and forms part of Queensland’s Supreme Court system. In practice, this has raised concerns that outcomes can depend heavily on legal strategy and access to well-resourced and influential lawyers, whether acting for developers or councils. For ordinary residents seeking to challenge nearby developments, particularly those without the means to engage such representation, the system can appear heavily weighted against them. Allowing property developers to donate to councils only complicates this landscape further, intensifying concerns about fairness, accountability, and access to justice.

© Marcus Mark, MarcusMark.org. All rights reserved.
Note: This article reflects personal opinion and commentary, based on publicly available information at the time of writing, and does not constitute legal advice.