Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008

Debate resumed from 10 April 2008.Debate resumed from 10 April 2008.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.10 a.m.]: I congratulate Ms Sylvia Hale on bringing forward this private member's bill. Clearly there is a need for reform of political funding and the planning process. I am pleased that the need for reform of at least political funding is now widely recognised amongst the conservative political forces in New South Wales. On 22 March 2008, Easter Saturday, Premier Morris Iemma changed his position and commenced to talk about the need to ban political donations. On the same day the Leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Farrell, also changed his position so we are now able to debate the need for reform in a much more constructive way.

However, serious problems still exist. This is issue is very complex and Ms Sylvia Hale should be congratulated on bringing forward a bill that addresses this difficult area. The need for wide-reaching reform in local government has been demonstrated time and again. A number of councils have become household names because of scandals associated with the activities of some councillors and staff members. The pattern is clear: donations are corrupting the planning system. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 March 2008 Malcolm Knox stated:

The link between money and potential for corrupt conduct is apparent in the tabulation of donations to councils. Of the top 15 council recipients of donations at the 2004 council elections Wollongong (fourth), Tweed (sixth), Rockdale (ninth), Canada Bay (12th) and Strathfield (13th) have been either sacked or investigated over allegations of corrupt conduct. Lake Macquarie (fifth) and Newcastle (seventh) have either investigated allegations of corruption against councillors internally or faced down allegations in meetings.

The corruption watchdog, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, has investigated many of these councils where the current laws have failed to protect local citizens from the ravages of corrupt planning practices. Today I will focus on some of the activities at Shoalhaven City Council. The Independent Commission Against Corruption has not undertaken an investigation of the council: I am not stating that local councillors have been involved in corrupt practices. However, recent events with regard to donations and planning decisions at that local council area raise many questions, questions that the mayor, Mr Greg Watson, must respond to.

I understand that the election campaigns of Mayor Watson and the Shoalhaven Independents Group are characterised by large donations enabling substantial media promotion compared with the activities of all other candidates and groups in the area. Election Funding Authority records for Shoalhaven City Council elections indicate that the mayor and his team received a total of $91,017.60 for the last local government elections. This extraordinary level of funding swamped the financial capacity of any individual or group running in the election. It was far in excess of donations accepted for electoral purposes in the history of the Shoalhaven. Now $78,000—that is, 86 per cent of the total—came from just 10 separate entities donating more than $1,500 each. Of these 10 donors, all except the Manildra Group are involved with property development in the Shoalhaven area.

As an interest group, property development accounted for 97 per cent of the large donations and at least 84 per cent of total donations to the party. WD Pty Ltd donated $20,000. The principal of this company, Michael Corban, purchased several contiguous blocks of residential land on the central business district fringe six months after the 2004 Shoalhaven election. Following meetings with the mayor council supported rezoning of the land "business 3B" in 2004 through a local environmental planning amendment. Such rezoning of the site pre-empted completion of the design and consultation process behind the East Nowra subarterial road linking the Princes Highway to Grenwell Point Road. The site is now situated on the corner of the proposed—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: I do not have in front of me the actual text, but it appears that the member could be reading in-camera evidence given to the committee inquiring into funding and donations. Therefore, it is out of order.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: To the point of order: I am not a member of that committee. The Greens undertake their own very thorough research. We are presenting that as part of this debate. It would be unfortunate if any gag were implemented on the material we are putting forward.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: Perhaps the member could inform the House whether or not this is in-camera evidence, because if Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is correct, the Opposition would have concerns. If this evidence has come direct to her to be put on the public record, she should let the House know.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Further to the point of order: As I stated before, I am not a member of the inquiry to which Mr Nile referred, so I have not seen any of the in-camera material. We have undertaken our own research. This material has been collated. It came from a number of sources in the Shoalhaven, as well as our own research, but I have had no access to in-camera evidence put before the inquiry.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Further to the point of order: It might clarify the situation if the member could acknowledge whether she was reading from the submission of Mr Corrigan, which was given in camera.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, I am reading from my speech.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: A speech based on the submission from Mr Corrigan.

The PRESIDENT: Order! For one of a number of reasons the term "honourable" is used by members in this House as a sign of respect that members have for the word of other members. Of course, a degree of responsibility thereby rests with members. If a member advises the House that he or she is taking a course of action for good or appropriate reasons, the Chair is obliged to accept that advice, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Ms Lee Rhiannon has advised that the material she is reading was sourced from information obtained otherwise than from in-camera evidence given to a committee of this House. I accept that advice. However, I caution members that it would be dishonourable and indeed potentially contempt of the House to attempt to read into the record material that was given in camera before a committee and that has not as yet been reported to the House. Bearing my ruling and observations in mind Ms Lee Rhiannon may proceed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I seek clarification. As I am not a member of the committee, I do not know what evidence was heard in camera. We conducted our own research and have been presented with information. I have no idea what was in camera, but as with all debates I bring material forward. I would like to continue with my speech but would like to clarify that issue.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Point of order: The member has pointed out that she is unsure whether this matter was in-camera evidence. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who is a member of the committee, has said he believes it is. The member should take his word that he is correct.

Ms Sylvia Hale: To the point of order: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile prefaced his remarks by saying he did not have the actual words with him, so clearly he is not sure what words were said in camera. It is impossible for any member who is not a member of a committee that has held hearings in camera, when that member was not present, to be absolutely sure that they are not repeating material that was given in camera. So the Minister's point, I believe, is absurd.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Further to the point of order: I raised the point of order because it appeared that Ms Lee Rhiannon was referring to material that was presented in evidence in camera. Ms Lee Rhiannon may not have been aware of that, and that is the purpose of the point of order: it now brings it to her attention that she may be in contempt of the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! We are exploring new territory on this point. I am reluctant to stop Ms Lee Rhiannon from presenting her material. However, I repeat the caution I gave members earlier, that it would be inappropriate for any member to attempt to place on the record material that was given in camera before a committee and that has not yet been reported to the House. Members have a responsibility to ascertain the source, reliability and validity of information that they wish to present to the House. If members are not sure of their position in this regard, I urge them to seek the guidance of the Clerks. I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to bear in mind my ruling on this matter as she proceeds.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Further to the point of order: One way to resolve the matter would be for Ms Lee Rhiannon to table the document she has been reading from. The document could then be compared with the records of the committee.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am reluctant to ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to do that. It is a matter about which Ms Lee Rhiannon has to make a decision.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I seek leave to suspend my speech at this point to allow me to seek more information without holding up the House and to allow the debate to continue. I seek leave to return to my speech later in the debate.

Leave granted.

The PRESIDENT: I thank Ms Lee Rhiannon for taking that course of action.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.22 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008. The proposed legislation has three major aims: firstly, to broaden the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act objectives to include the need to respond to climate change; secondly, to extend the checks and balances on the powers exercised by the Minister under part 3A of the Act; and, finally, to prohibit donations from property developers.

The first part of the bill seeks to extend the objects of the principal Act. The two new objectives have been phrased as follows: first, to encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation of the effects of climate change; and, second, to encourage the protection and enhancement of the health and wellbeing of the community. The first object of the principal Act encourages "the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment", while the sixth object encourages "the protection of the environment".

The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the mitigation of the effects of climate change are important issues, but there is probably a reasonable argument that both are comprehensively covered within the Act's existing objects of "promoting a better environment" and "the protection of the environment". Similarly, it would appear that the protection and enhancement of the community's health and wellbeing are already included within the scope of the principal Act's existing first object, that is, "the proper management, development and conservation of resources for the purpose of promoting the social welfare of the community". Nevertheless, the Opposition does not oppose the addition of these objectives to the relevant section of the Act.

The second part of the bill seeks to make six amendments relating to decisions made under part 3A of the Act, which empowers the Minister for Planning to seize control of developments that the Government deems to involve critical infrastructure. The first five of these six part 3A amendments appear to be quite straightforward, and consistent with the spirit of the earlier part of the bill. They seek to give greater prominence to environmental concerns in the decision-making process.

The bill proposes that the Minister should be required to publish guidelines with respect to the environmental assessment requirements for approving projects under part 3A; that proponents of projects should be required to prepare an environmental assessment; and that public submissions regarding environmental assessments, having been edited by the director general with regard to ensuring privacy and security, be published on the department's website and also be provided to the proponent of the project and included in the director general's report to the Minister.

The last of the amendments included in the second part of the bill is concerned with the limited checks and balances to which the powers granted to the Minister by part 3A are subjected. The amendment provides an extension of the circumstances in which an objector to a project can appeal against a determination of the Minister to give approval to a project under part 3A of the principal Act. In her second reading speech Ms Sylvia Hale stated that the change would "allow greater scope for the Minister's decisions to be appealed". In introducing this amendment Ms Sylvia Hale is reviving the amendments that the Coalition unsuccessfully moved when the current part 3A was enacted.

When the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure and Other Planning Reform) Bill was debated in June 2005 the Greens attempted to refer the bill to General Standing Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 but moved no other amendments. Instead, it was the Opposition that led the attempt to ensure that the sweeping new powers of the Minister were checked and balanced by appropriate review mechanisms. Regrettably, despite the support of the Greens, the amendments were not passed.

For the record, my former colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe introduced five amendments to the bill on behalf of the Opposition, three of which were concerned with the opportunity to appeal decisions made under part 3A. These amendments sought to ensure the right of proponents, objectors and councils to appeal decisions made by the Minister under part 3A. During the debate the Hon. Patricia Forsythe stated:

The key issue in relation to these amendments is the right of appeal. The Committee needs to understand that it is essential that communities have a role and a place in planning in New South Wales, as well as a right to have a say about infrastructure, critical or otherwise, in an area.

It is thus the legacy of the Opposition's stance against the unfettered powers of part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that the Greens are now seeking to advance by way of amendment in this legislation, and therefore the Opposition has no objection to clauses 1 to 7 of the bill. But let us be quite clear about the context of the debate on the part 3A provision. Property developers have made $4 million worth of donations to the New South Wales Labor Party in the period since the current part 3A was enacted. Ten of the biggest developers paid more than $1 million to the Labor Party during the period in which the Minister considered $1.5 billion worth of their proposals.

The Minister currently has over 300 major projects on his desk under part 3A, and Liberal Party research shows that 48 of the developers involved in those projects have donated to the New South Wales Labor Party. This demonstrates the appalling conflict of interest that the 2005 change to the legislation has brought about. New South Wales Labor has created a culture in which businesses believe they must make donations to Labor in order for their development proposals to reach the Minister's desk, or for them to eventually receive approval.

I turn now to clause 8. While we are setting the record straight, I take this opportunity to refer to comments made by one of the Greens about the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding, a matter that directly relates to clause 8. On 11 March the Australian Financial Review reported Ms Lee Rhiannon as saying that the major parties colluded with the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters Party to keep the Greens off the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding.

I can only conclude that the journalist must have misquoted Ms Lee Rhiannon. As every member of the House knows, Opposition members voted for Ms Rhiannon to be on the committee, as well she knows. At the time the Leader of the Opposition condemned her exclusion from the committee in the media, and in his opening statement at the recent public hearings he again expressed his regret that a member of the Greens had not been included on the committee. Ms Rhiannon knows that it was the Labor members and not the Opposition that kept her off the committee. The Greens are not the only members of this House that have a longstanding association with political donations and campaign finance reform. Nearly four years ago I said in this place:

Effective restrictions on political donations and spending must be comprehensive, must apply to all jurisdictions, must act in parallel with regulations on spending by third entities, must be offset by a system of public subsidisation, and, finally, must be appropriately audited and regulated.

The Opposition has argued for reform of political financing, both funding and spending, for many years and understands that there is growing community concern that vested interests are using money, given as donations, to buy influence in New South Wales. It is one of the factors that has undermined public confidence in government and public administration in this State. Many people believe that the public interest has suffered when decisions are being made on a range of issues.

In May last year the Leader of the Liberal Party, Barry O'Farrell, member for Ku-ring-gai, attempted to establish a committee to report on political donations and campaign expenditure for State and local government elections in New South Wales. Disappointingly, Labor members in the other place used their numbers to thwart his attempt. Following this turn of events I introduced the motion of which I had given notice that established the select committee that is currently investigating electoral and political party funding.

Clauses 8 makes it an offence for a property developer to make or offer to make, including through another person, a donation to a member of Parliament, an elected member of a local council, a candidate for election, a political party or party official. It will also be an offence to accept or solicit such a donation. A property developer includes any person who has made a development application under the principal Act, or an application for approval under Part 3A, that is undetermined. It is a matter of public record that the select committee has produced a discussion paper, received 183 submissions at the time I wrote this speech—it might have gone up by now—has held five public hearings, and held a public forum.

The substance of clause 8 has been canvassed in the discussion paper, in many of the submissions, in the evidence of many of the witnesses, and by a number of the participants in the public forum. In fact, it is a matter of public record that a number of the specific changes are included in submission 182 from the Department of Premier and Cabinet and have been publicly endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. Many other excellent suggestions have been advanced and I thank all those who have put so much effort into their submissions. One of the most impressive witnesses has been Dr Joo-Cheung Tham, senior lecturer in the law faculty at the University of Melbourne. In his evidence in a public hearing, he stated:

If we are contemplating any reform, any changes to the regulatory framework, they must deal with the demand side of political funding, that is, the appetite for increasing campaign funds, in order to tackle the supply side problems, whether they are problems relating to influence or money coming from businesses and so on and so forth.

That was a very pertinent observation and something we must bear in mind as we consider proposals such as the one contained in clause 8 of the bill. In view of the fact that the select committee will shortly enter its deliberative phase to consider these and other matters, I think the appropriate course of action is to refer the bill to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding for its consideration of clause 8. Accordingly, I move:

That the question be amended by omitting all words after "that" and inserting instead "this bill be referred to the Select Committee on electoral and Political Party Funding for inquiry and report".

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [11.34 a.m.]: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008 affects local governments and communities across New South Wales. As a local government councillor for more than 16 years and the Mayor of Hurstville City Council for some of that period I saw the many deficiencies in the operation of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It is clear that the Act needs a major overhaul to restore power to local communities and not centralise power with the Minister for Planning, Mr Frank Sartor. The changes proposed by the Minister for Planning will give the Labor Government more control over every level of the planning approval process. The Minister's fingerprints will be on all appointments: the Planning Assessment Commission, the joint regional planning panels, the arbitrators and the planning administrators. With the exception of the Planning Assessment Commission, the Minister can fire any of the members that he has appointed if he does not like their decisions. The Planning Assessment Commission has no recourse to the Land and Environment Court if an application is refused. Whatever happened to natural justice in this State?

The object of the bill is to increase the level of community involvement in the determination of developments under part 3A of the Act. The bill makes it an offence for any property developer to make a donation to any elected office holder, candidate for election, political party or party official, or for a donation to be accepted. The bill also makes it an offence for any person to make a development application or lodge an expression of interest to carry out a development within one year after making a donation to the same category of persons previously mentioned, as well as making it an offence for a donation to be made within one year of a person's development application being determined.

If the Premier is serious about reforming the State's political donations law then the Government will ultimately support the bill either now or at the conclusion of the current upper House inquiry. The proper way to deal with this major public confidence issue would be to defer the bill and refer it for consideration to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding for comprehensive assessment and examination of issues to tighten up any loopholes. The reform processes that have thus far been fed to the media have not stopped the Labor Party from raising approximately $110,000 every week or $24 million between 2003 and 2007.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: How was dinner last night?

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: It was not a political fundraiser. We were charged $100, and I can assure the honourable member that we got far in excess of $100. It was not a major political fundraiser: it was a mark of respect for our previous Prime Minister. Let us face it; the Government intends to let Labor fundraising efforts proceed unimpeded in the lead-up to the local government elections on 13 September 2008. Proposals to channel political donations through party headquarters and union dues and memberships, rather than individuals, will obscure rather than prevent patterns of lobbying influence.

Are we to believe that an executive of a property company who paid $5,100 at a Labor fundraiser to have lunch with Minister Sartor did not discuss projects? Development approvals or changing in zoning can mean millions of dollars to developers. It is no wonder that the public has lost confidence in our democratic systems: we have had the Wollongong sex and gifts for development scandal, documents withheld from Parliament over the lower Hunter regional strategy, the Transport Workers Union moneymaking roundabout, and members of Parliament failing to disclose donations of $50,000 from developers.

Who is listening to the warnings of Noel Hemmings, QC, who is assisting the Independent Commission Against Corruption in its investigation of Wollongong City Council, that caucusing to reach an agreed party position on a motion or development that comes before council is a corrupt activity? Mr Hemmings warned it was widespread amongst Labor councillors. Have we heard any supportive statements from Minister Sartor telling us his views on caucusing amongst councillors? No, there has been a deafening and guilty silence as these dodgy developers are paid in return for their dollars by having development applications approved, usually against council and planning officers' recommendations. Since my election in March 2007 I have travelled across New South Wales and met with numerous community leaders and community groups. I am yet to meet one person who is happy with the Labor Party's handling of planning matters in this State. There is great unrest about the abolition of planning under Minister Sartor.

The Government, in its current review of planning laws, has held little public consultation. Communities are outraged by the Labor Government's measures to take away their rights to comment upon and determine what they want for their local environment and residential amenity. Last November Minister Sartor called for public submissions on his discussion paper on proposed changes to the planning system. It is the biggest overhaul in more than a decade. More than 500 submissions have been received by the Department of Planning from local councils, developers, planners, and mums and dads. The submissions are to be kept secret by Minister Sartor—centralised power—and not one of the submissions has ever been published on the department's website. Similarly, last year more than 200 submissions were received in relation to the review of the Heritage Act and not one submission was published. What type of process is that? Where is the transparency and accountability the community deserves?

The Local Government and Shires Associations commissioned a review by John Mant, a highly respected lawyer and town planner who designed South Australia's planning laws and rewrote the New South Wales Local Government Act. His review found that the expanded role of planning panels and planning arbitrators, who are conveniently appointed by Minister Sartor, could open the door to greater pressure from developers, interest groups and politicians. Surprise, surprise—that would provide more avenues for political donations. The planning arbitrators would be a costly duplication of process for local councils. I congratulate the Local Government and Shires Associations on their letterbox, website and general media awareness campaign against the Government's planning reforms: "Three Strikes for Local Communities. How the New South Wales Government wants to take control of local planning." The three strikes are:

Strike 1: Councils lose funds for community services (via local S94 contributions powers being stolen from them).

Strike 2: Private companies approve local development applications.

Strike 3: Neighbourhoods lose their character!

As to Minister Sartor's proposed compulsory acquisition powers for cases of major urban renewal, the draft proposed bill does not limit where these powers can or cannot be used. Naturally, with this Minister and Government the community expects the worst-case scenario. Is anyone's home or land safe when the Minister determines its acquisition is necessary in the public interest? Another major concern that communities have raised is the power of the Minister for Planning to call in an application under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as a development of State significance. The power of communities and councils over their future has been taken away by this provision and, again, the public sees a link with political donations from the big end of town. Members of the community have raised the impact of political donations on a Minister's decision when calling in a development. They have noted that there seems to be no formal method of disclosure requiring the Minister to declare whether the applicant for the development has made a contribution to the political party of which the Minister is a member. Greater disclosure requirements should be included in part 3A. In September 2007 the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommended:

The Commission believes that if the Minister is dealing with an application made by a political donor, higher levels of transparency and accountability are warranted.

It further recommended:

Persons submitting development applications or rezoning proposals to the Minister for Planning to declare any political donations they have made to the Minister or to his or her political party.

It also recommended:

The Minister for Planning include, in the list of designated development, development in respect of which a declaration as to the making of a donation has been made.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption urged:

Proposals lodged with the Minister by political donors should become designated development and thus subject to a Commission of Inquiry, an expert report, or the possibility of a third party appeal.

The Premier and Minister Sartor continue to ignore a critical seven-month-old Independent Commission Against Corruption recommendation for automatic referral of development applications from political donors to an arms-length approval process. Minister Sartor's draft legislation allows the Minister to decide whether to refer a project to the proposed new Planning Assessment Commission, despite the Independent Commission Against Corruption arguing that development applications from political donors should be automatically determined independently. The public continues to be most concerned about links between donations and decisions by the Minister. The Independent Commission Against Corruption proposed a method to reduce the risks of corruption, but its recommendations have been ignored completely by the Labor Government.

Last year Ms Sylvia Hale and I attended a public meeting in the Warringah Council area. Some major concerns raised were private certifiers, overdevelopment, the Minister's powers to call in development applications, pecuniary and conflict of interest provisions, political donations, independent hearing and assessment panels, and the failure of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to properly protect the environment and residential amenity, and ensure a transparent and accountable planning system. Warringah residents are a well-educated community when it comes to local government and planning law. As honourable members would be aware, Warringah Council was dismissed in 2003 following a section 740 public inquiry. A number of people who testified at that inquiry outlined various deficiencies in the planning process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Sadly, since the council was dismissed, little has been done by the State Government to address properly the concerns raised by the residents of Warringah and other similar local government areas that have had their democratically elected councils dismissed.

The Labor Government appointed former party member, Labor staffer and displaced director general Dick Persson as administrator. Mr Perssons recently tried to force upon the people of Warringah a change in height restrictions from 6 storeys to 20 storeys in the Dee Why town centre—I believe it is now 18 storeys as a concession to the community's outrage—and ram it through before the September council elections. His conduct highlights the bias of Labor to developer interests and the way in which the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act can be manipulated to ignore community opposition. It would be appropriate for the Independent Commission Against Corruption to examine the administrator's motives for supporting a major development company as opposed to community interests, his published public comments supporting the proposal, the misuse of public resources in promoting the proposal and the abusive conduct towards objectors. Instead, the Government has appointed Mr Persson administrator of Port Macquarie council, which was also sacked on spurious grounds—probably for political reasons.

I am alarmed that the Government intends to expand the role of private certifiers by including a capacity to approve development applications as well as oversee building construction. This causes a fundamental conflict of interest and is definitely not in the best interests of the community. We need a system where the private certifier is independently appointed. Under no circumstances should the Government pursue its objective to give private certifiers the dual role of approving a development application and overseeing compliance on the same matter. This is an inherent conflict of interest and a high risk of corruption. Even with the current Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel processes operating in some metropolitan councils, corruption risks must be identified and addressed. Permanent panels comprising the same people are not appropriate. The panels must be regularly turned over on a random rotational basis at each panel meeting and the composition must be changed to minimise the risk of corruption.

A full background check of the pecuniary interests and conflicts of interests of applicants for such panels must be undertaken before an appointment to panels. Strict pecuniary and conflict of interest disclosure provisions must be put in place to ensure that panel members, their family members or associates and companies do not benefit from their panel membership. All panels should be required to publish statements of decision and indicate how each panel member deliberated and voted. Panels that consist of tertiary-qualified and multiskilled town planners, engineers, lawyers and senior staff should decide more substantial development applications, with councillors as observers. An analysis of legislation across Australia governing local government pecuniary interest and conflict of interest disclosure provisions has revealed the lack of ability of the New South Wales legislation to deal with those in local government who seek to gain financially from their public office.

In New South Wales if a councillor does not disclose a pecuniary interest and vote on a matter in which he or she receives a benefit, the penalty, if imposed, is a mere suspension or expulsion from office for five years. In Western Australia if a councillor abuses his or her position of power and votes on a matter in which he or she has an interest, the maximum penalty, if convicted, is a jail term. That is certainly a great deterrent against corruption. It is interesting to note that since 1999 only 15 of the 773 complaints about alleged breaches of pecuniary interest disclosure provisions received by the New South Wales Department of Local Government were prosecuted in the Pecuniary Interest and Disciplinary Tribunal. Communities have called time and time again for the true pecuniary interests of candidates for local government to be publicised. It has been proposed that candidates for office should have to disclose their pecuniary interests and sources of campaign funding prior to an election, and that such disclosures should be published in the voting booths on the day of an election in the interests of transparency and providing the community with information regarding those who aspire to public office. Keeping such a register up to date on a monthly basis is also an imperative.

The public's perception of the ethics of local government councillors and members of Parliament in regard to our planning processes is in an extremely poor state. Labor in New South Wales has created a climate in which there is a perception that donations buy influence—dollars for development. We need legislation that will ensure transparency and full community participation. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and associated legislation governing local government needs major reform. Unless and until that happens the problems at some of the councils I have mentioned will continue to plague efficient and effective community-based local government.

Local government continues to be plagued by vested interests. One has only to consider the events at Liverpool City Council surrounding the infamous Oasis project, Tweed Shire Council, Warringah Council and the recent examples in Wollongong City Council, to realise that local government in this State is in chaos. The stench of corruption of planning processes in this State due to the influence of political and developer donations will not go away. Have no fear: this issue will see us through to the next State election. The Labor Government must implement the Independent Commission Against Corruption's recommended arms-length independent assessment process.

The Coalition will continue to push for campaign finance reforms, as the Hon. Don Harwin outlined in his contribution, that seek limits on how much can be spent by candidates and parties and place a cap on annual donations. I urge the Government to take the lead and approach the Federal Government to place national bans on members of Parliament, their staff and all public servants from accepting all developer donations and to place a limit on election spending. I urge the Greens to agree to the motion moved by the Hon. Don Harwin for deferral of this matter and for its referral to the select committee. Let us make sure that when the select committee reports, its recommendations are as tight as we can make them so that we can restore some confidence in our communities in the local government planning process.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.52 a.m.]: I will speak briefly on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008. The bill covers a number of areas. One object of the bill is to amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to provide for objectives further to the principal Act and to increase the level of community involvement in the determination of applications for approval of development projects under part 3A of the principal Act. The key areas of concern to me relate to property developer donations and development applications involving donations.

I have no problems with the content of the bill and I sympathise with the objectives of Ms Sylvia Hale. However, the bill pre-empts the report and recommendations of the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding. The committee has spent a great deal of time examining donations, as well as other matters referred to in the bill. These matters are very serious and must be dealt with. I assure the House that as chairman of the committee I will do everything I can to ensure that those matters are dealt with. Obviously, as chairman of the committee I am a servant of all the members of the committee, but my personal objective will be to ensure that we can achieve Ms Sylvia Hale's objectives through our committee's inquiry, report and recommendations. The committee is yet to finalise its report and recommendations.

Even though the Hon. Don Harwin has only just given notice of his amendment—I have not discussed it with him—I believe it has merit and I will therefore support the amendment in due course that the bill be referred to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding for inquiry and report. The other matters in the bill dealing with part 3A of the Act are not part of the committee's terms of reference, so it would not report on those matters. However, as has been stated by previous speakers, the Government has issued an exposure bill for public comment and consultation that covers many of these issues. I understand that, with feedback from that consultation, the exposure bill is being redrafted and will be presented to the House in due course.

Therefore, I believe it would be better if the two objects of the bill dealing with those matters were dealt with also when the House debates the final environmental planning legislation that the Government has indicated will be introduced in due course. Instead of dealing with donations piecemeal now and then dealing with environmental planning issues later, I believe it will be far more efficient for the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding to consider aspects of the bill that fall within its terms of reference and then for the other matters to be dealt with when the House debates the Government's bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.57 a.m.]: I support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Restoration of Community Participation) Bill 2008. In doing so I congratulate my colleagues Ms Sylvia Hale and Ms Lee Rhiannon on their work to alert the people of New South Wales to the damaging effect that developer donations have had on the planning process throughout this State. They have been courageous and forthright in standing up for the rights of communities, particularly those that have been run over by a development process that has been systemically corrupted by donations flowing from developers to the Labor Party and the Coalition.

In her remarks my colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon concentrated on the importance of this bill, and in particular its provisions relating to donations, in cleaning up past ongoing corruption of planning decisions at the local government level. When she speaks later in the debate she will elaborate on that matter in greater detail. I will refer to the State level and the relationship between donations and decisions at the State level, and the importance of not only the donations provisions in this bill but also the expanded appeals provisions the bill proposes for decisions made under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

What I have to say is alarming and is a reason for urgent action. There is evidence of systemic corruption of the planning system by large-scale donations from developers. The consequences of these donations and the systemic corruption they have wrought are writ large in the brick and concrete—the built fabric—of this State. Developments that should never have proceeded but have been passed through a planning system corrupted by donations will stand forever as a testament to the failure of Labor governments to reject donations and their influence.

If we do not act now this situation will continue and our community and the environment will continue to be blighted. These blights are highway robbery and the people who are rorting are highway robbers. As surely as they might walk into our homes and steal our videocassette recorders, they are robbing on an even grander scale. This is theft from the community; this is larceny from tomorrow. I will give evidence about part 3A development approvals being obtained by developers who have been massive donors to the Australian Labor Party. I will cite cases of developments that have flowed from developers and I will quote from developers who support the Greens' case.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.