The Australian Institute for Progress Ltd v The Electoral Commission of Queensland & Ors [2020] QSC 54
Item
-
Title
-
The Australian Institute for Progress Ltd v The Electoral Commission of Queensland & Ors [2020] QSC 54
-
Date
-
February 21, 2020
-
Summary
-
This case concerned donations in relation to the Australian Institute for Progress (AIP). The AIP Board is a research body largely connected to the Liberal National Party and ‘ideologically centre-right': at [1]. In support of advocating for a particular political party and conducting political research, the AIP intended to accept donations from 'prohibited donors'. The Commission advised that, as AIP was a ‘third party’ within the meaning of the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld), it was not lawful for prohibited donors to make gifts to the AIP. The AIP sought declaratory relief, arguing, inter alia, that s 48 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) meant that the provisions of the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) ‘must be interpreted, to the extent possible that is consistent with their purpose, in a way that is “compatible with human rights”’: at [117].
First, Applegarth J found that the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act limited the rights of freedom of expression and the right to take part in public life by prohibiting property developers from making certain donations to political parties: at [119]. Applegarth J then considered whether this limitation was reasonable and justifiable in accordance with the proportionality requirement of s 13 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). His Honour considered that the purpose of the provisions of the Electoral Act 1992 (Qld) is to reduce ‘the risk of actual or perceived corruption related to developer donations in State elections and improving transparency and accountability in State elections and State government’: at [122]-[123]. This purpose ‘is consistent with “a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom”’ and is important because it enhances the democratic system: at [124], [127]. His Honour found that whilst preserving the rights contained in ss 21 and 23 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was important, the limitation in this case was proportionate and reasonable: at [128], [133].
