Concerns were also raised that marginalised and vulnerable sectors of the community, such as the homeless and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would be left out of the voting process, because of the difficulties they suffered in obtaining formal identification. The committee noted “the competing interests of the fundamental right to vote and regulating to ensure elections are fair and honest”, but concluded that those who wanted to vote, would. But to help safeguard against the risk of “disenfranchisement” among certain groups, the committee recommended the government make clear that a wide range of identification, both photogenic and non-photogenic, be included in the Electoral Reform Regulation, to make it easy for voters to fulfil the proof of identity requirement. It also recommended that electoral officers with the Electoral Commission of Queensland be trained in proof of identity requirements and how to help voters with the declaration process. But the donation and expenditure changes were supported.

The government has proposed lifting the disclosure rate from $1000 to $12,400 in line with federal legislation. It also wants to scrap the restrictions which capped donations to political parties at $5000, and candidates at $2000, per donor, and limited expenditure to $80,000 per party per electorate and $50,000 per candidate. The rules governing third party donations are different. Professor Graeme Orr of the University of Queensland described the removal of the limits as “retrograde” and “a backward step for the key goals of political integrity and equality”. “Unlimited donations risk political integrity,” Professor Orr said. “They allow wealth to buy an unequal share of political influence and voice.

"Democracy and the universal franchise are meant to make all citizens equal in political worth. "Unlimited donations skew money to the governing party of the day(or, occasionally, to an opposition on the brink of power), because private donations follow power. "Power in Queensland has few enough checks/balances, given the lack of upper house or bill of rights.” But the Family Voice Australia group supported the changes on the grounds there was “no justification for banning donations from particular sources such as corporations or industrial organisations”. But the committee formed the view that the restrictions had not been in place for very long, having been enacted by the previous government in 2011.

“In the Committee's view, the pre-Amendment Act requirements functioned effectively, relying on the transparency and accountability afforded through appropriate financial disclosure obligations,” it concluded. But the government's plan to have financial disclosures made monthly “to increase transparency” were abandoned, after Crown Law advice found that “more likely than not be held to be inconsistent with the Commonwealth Act and to that extent invalid”. “Consequently, the existing requirements in the Queensland act relating to the disclosure of donations have been retained and amended to increase the donation threshold and to align with Commonwealth requirements of the time frames for the disclosure of donations”. Increasing the disclosure limit means fundraisers can be held, where attendance costs $10,000 a ticket, but the individual donors would not have to declare their donation, as it falls under the $12,400 limit. The legislation also proposes policy development payments be made in instalments to registered political parties with an elected member.

The payments, which exclude independent MPs, would be “based on relative electoral strength” – based on the “total number of formal first preference votes received by each of its endorsed candidates who polled at least 10 per cent...for their electoral district in the last election” - to “ensure parties can continue to engage fully in developing and shaping policy while continuing to effectively represent the community”. Essentially, taxpayer funds could be used for political party policy development. Professor Orr argued that the legislation did not require the funds given in this way to be used on policy development or administration, noting “they could be used on future electioneering”. “There is not even a safeguard against using public funding for private benefit or expenses”. But the committee found that “a party shall be accountable to itself for the best use of the payment” and did not consider it necessary “to legislate further in this regard”.

Legal Affairs committee members, Peter Wellington, the independent Nicklin MP and Opposition MP Bill Byrne, both submitted to the committee their objections to the Bill. Mr Wellington said he could not support aspects of the legislation, including the proposed policy development payment while Mr Byrne said it represented a “substantial attack on the foundations of our democracy”. Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie is reviewing the committee's report. But the government is under no obligation to heed its recommendations. Given the government's majority, the legislation will pass.