Two tick boxes confront every candidate standing for the local government elections being held across NSW this weekend.
They seek to answer the question: Are you a property developer or a close associate of a property developer?
It appears to be a slightly odd request, given that while developers are banned from making political donations in NSW campaigns, they are not banned from standing for election.
But it has been required since last year as part of a suite of reforms - some delivered, some not - aimed at cracking down on developers like flamboyant former Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer.
The Office of Local Government says the disclosure forms will be "on display" at polling booths at the weekend so voters are fully informed about who they're voting for.
But despite its intent, the box-ticking exercise exposes the contradictions in the rules governing what property developers can and can't do in NSW politics and the Berejiklian government's apparent lack of interest in properly fixing it.
Developers have been banned from making political donations in NSW since 2010 due to the corruption risk, via laws that have been upheld by the High Court.
But on Saturday, it is extremely likely that any number of property developers will be elected to local government across NSW.
The obvious risk is that - despite the safeguards - they could influence planning decisions which may have direct relevance to their business dealings, or those of colleagues and friends.
As has been repeatedly shown, too often back-room, undisclosed agreements between councillors ensure a vote goes a particular way even if the beneficiary isn't allowed to participate.
One of the NSW government's laudable recent solutions to this is the introduction of mandatory independent planning panels that will automatically deal with developments worth between $5 million and $30 million.
The four members of the panel are appointed by the council.
Councillors are not eligible to sit, and there must be an "approved independent person" as chairman, two approved independent people with "relevant expertise", and a community member.
Thanks to amendments pushed by Labor in the upper house, developers will not be eligible for appointment.
But it's conceivable that even these new panels could be populated by property developers, because the definition of what constitutes a developer in NSW remains ridiculously narrow.
Under the election funding laws, only someone who "regularly" makes development applications, or a close associate of such a person, is captured. This has proven an enormous loophole.
Perhaps the best recent example involves Fairfield councillor Peter Grippaudo, who ticked the "I am not a developer" box on his most recent candidate form, despite running a company that made 150 development applications in three years.
The NSW Electoral Commission has the power to investigate such matters.
Labor has called for property developers and real estate agents to be banned from standing for election to council, but the government has resisted this.
If it is not going to pursue an outright ban - which it should - it needs to urgently close the developer definitional loophole.
As part of the government's response to recommendations of the parliamentary Committee on Electoral Matters report regarding election funding laws, it has committed to examining whether the prohibited donor bans remain relevant.
These are the laws that ban anyone involved in the development, alcohol, tobacco or gambling industries from being a political donor in NSW elections.
The question is being asked in light of caps on political donations of $6100 to parties and $2700 to candidates. The argument is that this amount is unlikely to sway decisions.
It's the perfect opportunity to not only reconfirm the ban on developer donations, but also to tighten the definition of a developer to capture anyone who has carried out a residential or commercial development within a defined period.
It's particularly important in light of other proposed integrity reforms that would require developers to disclose their occupation on pecuniary interest declarations lodged with councils and available online.
It would ensure developers or their associates are not appointed to new planning panels in the future, and retrospectively force the appropriate level of transparency from those who are elected to local government this weekend.
