When announcing the investigation, the CMC made clear it had found no evidence of misconduct by Campbell Newman, who was lord mayor at the time the donations were made and was running for the premiership when the allegations were raised in The Australian newspaper. Mr Seeney confirmed he had had a “robust” discussion with CMC chairman Ross Martin, SC, soon after the LNP's state election victory. At a media conference this afternoon, Mr Seeney said the CMC had once again “allowed itself to be used in the political debate”, adding that the developer donation claims were part of Labor's “horrendous campaign” against Mr Newman in the run-up to the election. “To finally dismiss a complaint some six months after the election that was obviously part of the election campaign, I think raises a whole series of questions about the CMC and how it operates,” he said. “The CMC have to ensure that they don't allow themselves to be used as part of the political debate, that they're not part of the political argument, and it's quite clearly something that is ongoing.

“We saw it during the last election campaign in regard to a number of accusations, and today six months later we finally see the complaint dismissed.” In a written response this afternoon, the CMC said it was independent and apolitical. "It is not appropriate for the CMC to be drawn into political debate," a CMC spokeswoman said. "Put simply, the CMC has an obligation to consider each referral/complaint and make its decision accordingly. "The CMC also has the ability, in the public interest, to generate its own assessment of a matter whether or not a formal complaint has been received.

"At no time during the election campaign or since, has any decision or public statement been politically motivated. "Just because it’s inevitable that some of the CMC’s decisions will have political consequences, that does not mean they were made for partisan reasons. No CMC decision is ever made for partisan political reasons." The corruption watchdog's past statements indicate the Woolloongabba development probe was not the result of a complaint by the Labor party. The CMC said it decided on February 29 it was in the public interest to begin its own assessment of donations made by a Brisbane developer and associated entities to the LNP's campaign fund for Brisbane City Council candidates ahead of council approval for the development. On March 15, then premier Anna Bligh referred to the CMC material which suggested that a company associated with the property developer had an office in a building owned by interests associated with Mr Newman.

On March 16, the CMC issued a statement confirming it would launch a formal investigation into the donations issue, but Ms Bligh's material did not add anything to the issue and an examination of the claims showed the alleged link between Mr Newman and the developer was “tenuous at best”. The statement – just over a week before the state election – confirmed the CMC had examined numerous allegations related to Mr Newman, but had found no evidence of wrongdoing by the aspiring premier. Asked today about CMC's assertions that it was the one that initiated the investigation, Mr Seeney said the allegation was “part of a political campaign” in the run-up to the election. “There was a whole election campaign that was built around the series of accusations about Campbell Newman's credibility,” he said. “Now [Labor Opposition Leader] Annastacia Palaszczuk should apologise for that and the CMC should be aware that they've been drawn in to that.”

Pressed on what the CMC should have done differently when examining the Woolloongabba development issue, Mr Seeney said the body “should be aware of the potential for players in the political game to make complaints to the CMC and then to use that in the political argument”. “The CMC should immediately dismiss complaints that are obviously part of the political argument. They should immediately dismiss complaints that are used in the political argument and that would provide a disincentive for people to make those complaints. “The genuine complainant would not use the fact that they have made a complaint in the political argument. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about something can make a complaint to the CMC and not broadcast it to the world.” Mr Seeney indicated legislation could be changed if the CMC did not change its approach to such issues. “I think we in the government need to look at the legislation to see what we can do about it, but the CMC are in the best position to do something about it. They need to protect their own credibility,” he said.

“The CMC can change it [the approach to politically charged allegations] immediately by adopting the right attitude towards it. We will look at the legislative processes but it's much easier for the CMC to take the action that is required to stop this sort of misuse of the CMC and the powers that it has.” Ms Palaszczuk called on Mr Seeney to clarify what changes he intended to make to the CMC. “By talking about new laws covering the CMC, Mr Seeney seems to be suggesting the LNP government wants to curtail the scope and powers of the independent corruption watchdog,” she said in a statement. The practice of political figures making formal complaints about their rivals and then publicly trumpeting the subsequent investigation has long been an issue for bodies such as the CMC. In May, Mr Martin said he was reluctant to limit free speech during election campaigns, arguing voters could draw their own conclusions about politicians who publicised complaints against their opponents.

“This is a matter that has been wrestled with for nearly 20 years now; there have been considerations and debate about that for a very long time,” said Mr Martin, who was appointed to the helm of the CMC in February. “Since Mr Seeney's election, I have spoken with him and endeavoured to explain to him ... the history of what happened at that time that seems to have prompted those comments.” Mr Martin said he had also explained to Mr Seeney the difficulty that emerged regarding the issue of what happened around election time. The CMC could take a number of different approaches but each of them had “profound problems”. “For my part I take the view that we welcome complaints that are genuine,” Mr Martin said.

“We discourage making those complaints public because that typically interferes with the process of investigation and assessment. “While we have some powers to deal with inappropriate publicisation of complaints, we are reluctant to impede free speech during election times and you can understand there's good reasons for that.” Mr Martin, formerly a crown prosecutor who led the case against disgraced former Labor minister Gordon Nuttall and former Bundaberg surgeon Jayant Patel, said the CMC tried to resolve election-sensitive complaints as quickly as possible. “But we also rely upon the fact that voters are clever people and that when a complaint is made to us that is then the subject of publicity by the complainant – without wishing to prejudge the value of any particular complaint that might be brought – voters can nevertheless form their own view about whether or not there might be other motives,” he said. In May, a report by a cross-party parliamentary committee looked at the issue and suggested that an election campaign ban preventing Queensland's corruption watchdog from commenting on investigations would “fly in the face” of its independence.

The Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee, which oversees the CMC, said the public should be able to have confidence in the CMC to be impartial and the government “should have sufficient confidence in the CMC to maintain its impartiality and allow it to perform its functions as required”. “The committee considers the ongoing requirement for openness and transparency in the CMC's operations outweighs the need for any legislative gagging of the CMC or any politician or aspiring politician, for that matter, during an election campaign,” the report said. Examining the 2012 campaign, the committee report said it appeared the CMC had complied with its media policy only to release information “after it became aware that the CMC's involvement in the matters was about to be misrepresented in the media”. The committee argued the CMC acted within its authority by commencing a “self-generated” look into a suspicion of misconduct. The watchdog also devoted resources to finalise assessments quickly, given the impact unresolved complaints could cause during an election campaign, the report said.

However, the committee acknowledged public discussion about a “CMC investigation” may have an impact on persons running for public office, regardless of outcomes or facts. While opposing changes to the law, the committee called on the CMC to review its information release policies. The watchdog should also look at “developing a specific, publicly available policy on dealing with matters referred to it about serving public officers or candidates for public office during an election campaign”. The CMC issues public warnings in the lead up to elections urging candidates against frivolous complaints and also against publicising any referrals to the watchdog. In November 2011, figures released to brisbanetimes.com.au showed there had been 32 complaints made to the CMC by state MPs and Brisbane councillors against each other in the six months immediately prior to elections in the past seven years.

Only one of those complaints was substantiated by the CMC, prompting the corruption watchdog to reissue its warning to candidates not to use the body for “politically motivated attacks”. In October last year, then deputy premier Andrew Fraser lodged a complaint with the CMC about Mr Newman's pecuniary interest declarations during his time as Brisbane lord mayor. The same month, the CMC announced it had found no evidence of wrongdoing. Mr Seeney said people who make complaints should not go public with the action. “If someone's got an accusation to make, go and make the accusation to the CMC and shut up about it,” he told reporters this afternoon. “Let the CMC do their investigations and come to some conclusion. I'm quite happy for anyone to make any accusation they like if they go to the CMC, make that accusation and shut up about it.”

Mr Seeney was unfazed by the CMC's wider review into political donations, announced today. “The CMC can undertake whatever investigations it likes, but it has to be very careful that it doesn't involve itself in the political debate,” he said. “It has to be very careful that it doesn't enable itself to be used as a political tool and that's happened too many times. It happened too many times during the election campaign and it still happens today.” The appointment of a minister's son to a role at the Department of Transport and Main Roads is also under CMC investigation. "The CMC can confirm, as placed on the public record, that it received information alleging official misconduct relating to the process surrounding the appointment of a departmental officer at the Department of Transport and Main Roads," the CMC said in a statement this week.

Loading "The CMC is now investigating the matter. As the matter is ongoing, it is not appropriate to comment further. "In all matters it is important to note that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and all allegations should be treated as unsubstantiated until a final outcome is reached."