Planning Panels Appointments

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning. With the stench of corruption—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for East Hills to order.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: —around Labor's dollars for deals, why does the Minister propose to personally hire and fire most members of his new planning panels, including the joint regional planning panels, the arbitrators, the planning administrators and the Planning Assessment Commission, at the same time as he refuses to implement the recommendations of the Independent Commission Against Corruption to limit the potential for corruption?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: We have an exposure bill so people have a chance to comment. The bill will be debated in Parliament so people have a chance to discuss the matter. I am happy to answer some of these questions but, in doing so, I say that the Opposition runs a risk of challenging Eliot Spitzer for the prize for hypocrisy. Barry was the Secretary of the Liberal Party—the bagman for the Liberal Party—and there they are going to fundraising—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: Mr Speaker, I ask you to direct the Minister to refer to members appropriately by their titles. I ask him to apologise for his last silly comment.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the member's point of order. The Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I simply referred to the fact that some time ago—not now—the Leader of the Opposition was the bagman for the New South Wales Liberal Party.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: Mr Speaker, the Minister is obviously canvassing your ruling. I believe that you need to draw his attention to that fact.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the matter. The Minister will address members by their correct titles.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I will come to the premature debate about the planning legislation in a moment. It is important to put this into context. We saw at the weekend a baseless and scurrilous newspaper article with a chronology—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Those opposite produced a chronology that was, as usual, factually and substantially wrong. It referred to my approving modifications at Rhodes. I did not approve those modifications, my department did. It inaccurately referred also to the lodgement of a development application on a certain date. It was a declaration by the director general. The chronology just did not fit. They probably looked at donations from 20 developers and then the chronology of the assessments and compared them until they found a couple that sort of fitted together.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: The figure was 48 out of 342, not a couple.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. I call the member for Wakehurst to order.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I am relieved that the Greens searched 48 development applications and could find only two in respect of which the chronology matched. The hypocrisy and the lengths to which those opposite are going to smear not only me but also the Government and my department are extraordinary. My department gives impartial and independent advice on these matters. There were grey areas, but in the hypocrisy stakes we know that the Leader of the Opposition is rivalling Eliot Spitzer, the former Governor of New York.

Mr Andrew Stoner: He is canvassing your ruling again, Mr Speaker.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I am establishing the context and I will squarely address the question. Who else is rivalling Spitzer's hypocrisy? Who threw much of the mud that was thrown on the weekend? Normally it is the Leader of the Opposition, but this time it was Sylvia Hale. Who did the Local Government Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal find in 1996 to have failed to declare a pecuniary interest? It was none other than Sylvia Hale, both on a matter before the council and in her declarations. It was Sylvia Hale, that great defender of morality and ethics in this Parliament. Unlike the Greens and Sylvia Hale, no-one has ever found that I have failed to declare a pecuniary interest. I bet that if the affairs of members opposite were examined closely similar findings would be made. I will refer to the legislation, and I promise the House that I will be briefer than usual.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members should not interrupt the Minister after that comment!

Mr FRANK SARTOR: On the one hand, members opposite want to hold the Government and the Minister accountable for decisions. On the other hand, they want a system whereby everything happens at a distance but the Minister is held accountable if someone fails to do the right thing or whatever. If we are to set up regional panels, someone must appoint them and someone must remove them. Members opposite cannot say that the panels I have appointed and the decisions I have made so far have been anything but balanced and reasonable. I am not in the business of promoting some sort of fix or partial decision making in this area. The Planning Assessment Commission—

Mr Brad Hazzard: The figure is $4 million.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: What have you raised?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Again, we have the smear. The member is trying to tie Labor Party fundraising to decisions made and work done by my department—an independent civil service. The member for Epping is nodding in agreement. The Minister and probably the Cabinet will appoint a planning assessment commission. It will be responsible for dealing with about 80 per cent of the State-significant developments. There also will be regional panels. Local councils will appoint two of the five panel members and the Minister will appoint the other three.

Mr Brad Hazzard: That is you.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: That is what Ministers do.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wakehurst will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Ministers appoint people. A register of planning arbitrators will be established and the councils will choose which arbitrator they want to use. Neither my department nor I will determine who will arbitrate. The Planning Assessment Commission, the regional panels and the arbitrators are all subject to the provisions of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act. The Government has introduced also a new right of appeal for local communities if an approval is given outside the standards and controls applicable in a particular area. We estimate that that will involve about 25 per cent of cases. The Government is giving people also more flexibility with appeals and reviews. This is twenty-first century legislation that will revolutionise the way people deal with planning in this State.