NCJ Number
215401
Date Published
May 2006
Length
213 pages
Annotation
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s inquiry into the 2004 Gold Coast city council election in Queensland, detailing many instances of false or misleading statements made by candidates during the election process.
Abstract
During the Gold Coast City Council election of 2004, an inquiry conducted by the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) found a barrage of secrecy, deceit, and misinformation. Through false statements made to the media, a positive case contrary to the facts was presented to the public concerning some candidates. The candidates were presented as totally independent candidates, funding their own campaigns. However, the truth was they had received funding through the initiative of two sitting councilors, and the funding came exclusively from parties with development interests. It was found through the inquiry that considerable efforts were put into hiding these circumstances from the public. This report outlines the deceit and misinformation in the hiding of this situation which adversely affected the integrity of the electoral process. Summary findings from the inquiry are presented in the areas of origin of the idea to fund a group of selected candidates, meetings at Quadrant and candidates’ campaigns, fundraising and payments to candidates and Quadrant, secrecy, candidates’ returns and third-party returns, fundraising functions, personal interests and public duty, consideration of prosecution proceedings, and corruption of the electoral process. Several recommendations are presented in the way of necessary changes to current policies, legislation, and practices to ensure that participants in local government political processes abide by the spirit and the letter of electoral laws. This inquiry into the 2004 Gold Coast city council election came about in July 2005 when the CMC received a file of material of allegations concerning the relationship between certain candidates and developers. Central to the allegations was the administration of a fund to which developers had made financial contributions to assist selected candidates with their election campaigns. CMC had also received complaints from private citizens and councillors calling for an investigation into the election. Appendixes A-B and references