- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 5 April 2005
Willoughby Council Electoral Donations Disclosure
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 25 of 35
| Next Item »
Page: 15005
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.54 p.m.]: I raise matters relating to the disclosure of electoral donations received by Pat Reilly during the March 2004 Willoughby council elections. I do so after having first raised with the Electoral Funding Authority [EFA] issues relating to the non-disclosure of expenditure and income received at a function on 17 March 2004 held to raise funds for Councillor Reilly's campaign. I do so because 13 months after that election neither Willoughby ratepayers nor the public generally know who attended that function to support Councillor Reilly's campaign, how much money was collected or what it cost. I do so because it is vitally important that, in conducting himself as Mayor of Willoughby, Councillor Reilly avoid any conflicts of interests or perceived conflicts of interest in relation to those supporters and donors to his campaign.
By way of background I note that Councillor Reilly's return, its content and omissions and its late lodgement, have been subject of local media reporting since February. When the issue of omissions was first raised, Councillor Reilly's initial comment was, "It's all there." Subsequently he 'fessed up to a "bookkeeping bungle" and making a mistake in not handing over all details to the EFA. Importantly, in that article Councillor Reilly told the North Shore Times he had the details on file and could produce them if required. A fortnight ago the mayor's story changed again. In this latest version Councillor Reilly said the information was not provided because it was not required and he had confused a private donation of $2,500 with the proceeds of the fundraising dinner at the centre of this controversy. Mid last month the EFA wrote to me indicating it was satisfied that Councillor Reilly had not breached local government electoral law.
The EFA supported its conclusion by two assurances from Councillor Reilly: firstly, that the dinner was neither organised nor conducted by him and, secondly, that although Councillor Reilly was a beneficiary of the event the proceeds were received by him after the statutory reporting cycle. In local media Councillor Reilly claims this letter clears him and has demanded that I apologise. In response I simply point out that local government regulates one of the most significant sectors of the economy—the property industry. The annual value of developments approved by local government is around $15,000 million. The Carr Government's urban consolidation policy has turned Sydney councils into what one commentator describes as "developers' playgrounds".
Given the continuing commercial and residential development in and around Chatswood and other parts of Willoughby, the value of projects approved by Councillor Reilly's council is, by any measure, significant. So through votes on council, Councillor Reilly and others elected to local government deny or deliver profits to developers and those involved in the property industry. That is why disclosure of donors is so important in local government. Further, under the Department of Local Government model code of conduct Councillor Reilly has an obligation to avoid both conflicts and perceived conflicts of interest. Without knowing who attended the function how can ratepayers be assured Councillor Reilly is abiding by the letter and spirit of that code? If a property developer, real estate agent or some other person pays to attend the function and subsequently submits a development proposal to Willoughby council for approval, how is the public to know whether Councillor Reilly has acted properly or otherwise if the list of donors has been kept secret? So the public interest demands that Councillor Reilly release the information he has publicly stated he has on file and could produce if required.
But I want to return to the EFA's letter. Despite the claim that the function was neither organised nor conducted by Councillor Reilly, I note that the invitation: included a letter from Councillor Reilly urging people to attend; was authorised by his campaign manager, who also donated $2,000 to the campaign; and was prominently marked "All proceeds raised on the evening will assist with the campaign to re-elect Pat Reilly as Mayor". The statement does not withstand even the most cursory scrutiny as it is clear that Councillor Reilly and his re-election effort were closely involved in both its organisation and conduct. Further, Councillor Reilly and public relations firm Markson Sparks! claim the entire profit from the function was only $2,500. I note that there were more than 300 people present at the function held at Willoughby Town Hall. According to the table list on display in the Town Hall's foyer on the night at least eight groups involved with the development or property industry attended. They paid either $1,500 or $10,000 a table—the latter being the price of a VIP package which included a pre-dinner cocktail reception with Councillor Reilly, preferential seating and a full-page advertisement in the night's program.
If the more than 300 attendees paid the basic ticket price of $150, the function took in a minimum of $45,000. But there was also an associated auction on the night and one auction item alone—an autographed Rolling Stones guitar—was sold on the night for $7,500. Invitees were also offered full-page or half-page sponsorships in the night's program for either $2,500 or $1,500. On the basis of the little that is publicly known about the function, an alleged profit of $2,500 out of gross takings of more than $50,000 simply does not stack up. Finally there is the issue of when the funds were received. Only in local government does the arcane rule exist that if moneys are received later than a month after the election they do not have to be disclosed until the next council elections, that is, 2008. State or Federal candidates rightly cannot get away with such a dodge. Thankfully, the local government Minister tells me this issue is being reviewed and will hopefully be changed. But how convenient is it that Councillor Reilly can now refuse to disclose the full details of income and expenditure at his function because the payment of profits was delayed.
Markson Sparks! told the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 March last year that Councillor Reilly would make a full disclosure of donors at the dinner when he lodged his 2004 electoral return. They pledged "full transparency" despite their previous involvement in denying to State electoral funding authorities the details of donors to the Premier's 1995 and 1999 State campaigns. Pat Reilly's friends at Markson Sparks! are serial offenders in respect of breaches of electoral disclosure laws. Councillor Reilly does not deserve an apology; he deserves to apologise to the ratepayers of Willoughby for engaging in a tawdry cover-up of his fundraising activities during the 2004 Willoughby Council elections. Councillor Reilly can put an end to this matter. Rather than waiting until 2008 to disclose the full details of the function, Councillor Reilly could, and should, release the details immediately. Only then can the public be satisfied he is being honest and acting appropriately when voting on development issues before council.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:34 : Update this page