Minister for Planning and Developer Political Party Donations

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning. Will he confirm that he personally telephoned developers, including Stockland, in some instances on multiple occasions, encouraging them to attend his February 2006 $500,000 Labor Party fundraiser, notwithstanding those developers were waiting for his consent under part 3A of the planning legislation?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: When this House debated the ban on smoking in pubs and clubs about three years ago, I presumed at the time—when I was the responsible Minister—that the Leader of the Opposition—

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I presumed that the Opposition's having received $200,000 from British American Tobacco had no impact on the voting of members of the Opposition or would influence them in any way in respect of how they dealt with that matter in this House. When legislation dealing with planning came before this Chamber on a number of occasions in the past two years, I presumed—

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I point out to the House that the election returns for the Labor Party show $27,000—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I suggest that the member ensure that his next point of order is relevant.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: As I just said, the Opposition received $200,000 from British American Tobacco, including $6,000 directly into Barry O'Farrell's own local campaign fund. I presumed that that had no impact on how members of the Opposition voted or on their position in regard to a very important public policy issue. When we debated planning legislation and a number of critical amendments to the planning Act and O'Farrell, Hazzard and the rest of the Opposition expostulated upon these issues, I presumed that the fact that the Liberal Party had received well over $1 million in donations from developers—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: —had no impact on how Liberal members voted, or on their position.

Mr Adrian Piccoli: Point of order: Standing Order 129 relates to relevance. You will understand that the question has nothing to do with what the Minister is going on about. The question is about phone calls that he made directly as a member of the Executive arm of this Government and one signature away from being able to make significant decisions.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Minister that answers must be relevant to the questions asked.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I am coming to the point. I think the question of consistency and hypocrisy is very relevant at the moment in this Chamber. The member for Wakehurst gets a speculative story from a journalist and straightaway seeks to besmirch my reputation in the exercise of my functions under the planning Act. I am answering the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat. It is inappropriate for Opposition members to interject when a Minister is answering a question. All members who have been called to order previously are now on three calls to order. I will not tolerate such behaviour.

Mr Brad Hazzard: I hope that applies to the Premier as well.

The SPEAKER: Order! All members who have been called to order previously are now on three calls to order.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: In February 2006 I hosted a quite significant fundraiser for the Australian Labor Party. Approximately 700 people attended. The media omit to tell people that most of the people who attended were not developers. They omit to tell people that the function was hosted by John Singleton, that Paul Keating made a fairly anti-development speech, and that Ray Hadley—that great supporter of the Australian Labor Party—conducted the auction. The media omit to tell people all that and instead run with the line that somehow I was soliciting in an improper way; implying that attendance by people at that dinner would somehow influence planning decisions.

I presumed goodwill and bona fides on the part of members of the Opposition. All I say now is that I have never, ever allowed donations to any political party, the Labor Party in particular, to influence what I do in my public office in any way, shape or form, and that will remain the case—even when members opposite come into my office lobbying me on behalf of developers and about local issues.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Mr Speaker, you were listening attentively to the question, and you would know that the question I asked required a yes or a no answer.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. The member for Bathurst will cease interjecting.