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

Debate resumed from 8 May 2008.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.17 a.m.]: Recent events in the Shoalhaven area add further weight to the Greens position that a ban on developer donations must be in place before the impending local government elections. Ms Sylvia Hale's bill would achieve that ban. Last week in speaking to this bill I provided the House with information based on donor and candidate returns lodged with the Election Funding Authority for the 2004 Shoalhaven council election and for the 2003 State elections, and information about local developments. Obviously I am not privy to conversations between developers and Mr Watson. The Greens do not know whether there is any connection between the donations received by the Shoalhaven Independent Group and local planning decisions.

I stand by my comments that Mayor Greg Watson owes the people of the Shoalhaven an explanation for planning decisions outside accepted procedures having been given the go-ahead. The head of WD Pty Ltd has been financially generous to Mayor Greg Watson and the Shoalhaven Independents Group. Triple One Holdings, one of Mr Corban's companies, donated $5,000 for Mr Watson's 2003 State election campaign. WD Pty Ltd donated $20,000 to the 2004 Shoalhaven council campaign for Mayor Greg Watson's Shoalhaven Independents Group. Mr Corban sought and received rezoning of valuable and prominent land on the Nowra central business district fringe in 2004. The Shoalhaven City Council Development Committee recommended on 6 July 2004 that a number of lots "on the corner of Moss Street, North Street and the Princes Highway, Nowra, be adopted as exhibited". They were the words stated in the council's document.

The decision was ratified by elected council and gazetted. The change from residential zoning to business means that this is the first commercial site that people encounter in the Nowra central business district when travelling south on the Princes Highway. Significantly, the rezoning of the site pre-empted completion of the design and consultation process behind the East Nowra Sub Arterial road, known as ENSA, linking the Princes Highway to Greenwell Point Road. The site is now situated on the corner of the proposed East Nowra Sub Arterial intersection. It is interesting to note that this rezoned land is now up for sale. It is described as:

The future is more than encouraging with Stockland's Nowra as your neighbour and the proposed East Nowra Sub Arterial Road to adjoin Moss Street, the East Street intersection is to become the gateway to Nowra and entrance to its new and accepted retail hub.

Ralph Lucas is another financial backer of Mr Watson and the Shoalhaven Independents Group. He donated $10,000 to Greg Watson's State election campaign in 2003 and $12,000 to the 2004 local Government election campaign for the Shoalhaven Independents Group. Mr Lucas is the owner of Lucas Property, which has substantial interests in the Sussex Inlet area. According to their website:

The Group's holdings include a further 200 hectares adjoining Riviera Keys. This holding contains the Sussex Inlet Golf Course, as well as extensive areas to accommodate further development. Current plans are to redevelop the Golf Course into a prestigious 18-hole course combined with residential development in excess of 600 home sites integrated in and around the Golf Course.

Rezoning and development of the Badgee Lagoon area was presented in the draft Shoalhaven council strategy, despite clear concerns from the Department of Planning and the then Department of Environment and Conservation. A Department of Planning document states:

Badgee Extension—extent of the wetland and swamp ECCs on site is greater than is mapped in the draft strategy. The Department believes that the potential lot yield outlined in the strategy is significantly overstated. The ECC boundaries need to be verified by onsite mapping and be excluded from the developable area.

Badgee Lagoon and the urban land between Berrara & Cudmirrah, are both listed as Sensitive Urban Lands and are currently subject to the independent review being undertaken for the Minister of Planning. The draft Strategy will need to be consistent with any findings of this Review . The extension of the Badgee area needs to be justified in light of the environmental attributes of the site.

This is the information that has come from the department. The clear conclusion from the then Department of Environment and Conservation was that the area of environmental concern has been minimised in the draft strategy exhibited by council. Maybe the error was a mistake, or maybe deliberate, but what we do know is that the result potentially maximises the area Lucas Property can develop—another reason why the mayor needs to explain what is happening here. I understand that last year those concerns were presented to the Minister for Local Government, Paul Lynch, and the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, in a document entitled "Protection of Shoalhaven Independent Group Interests in the Sussex Inlet Settlement Strategy Process".

Another one of Mr Watson's backers has been in the news lately. LED (South Coast) Pty Limited is a subsidiary of Beechwood Homes. This company donated $3,000 to the 2003 campaign for Mayor Watson. It donated a further $10,000 to the Shoalhaven Independents Group in 2004. In November 2002, the Shoalhaven City Council agreed to sell the 33-hectare former University of Wollongong agricultural campus to Vyntage Pty Limited, a Beechwood Homes subsidiary, for $5 million. This was confirmed at an extraordinary meeting of council on 11 February 2003. Mayor Watson was required to provide the casting vote for the sale to proceed. One month later the company donated $3,000 to Mayor Watson's State electoral campaign.

Elderslie Property Developments is another company that donates to the mayor. It is involved in a number of projects in the Milton-Ulladulla region. This company contributed $10,000 to the 2004 Mayor Watson-Shoalhaven Independents Group campaign for Shoalhaven council. Elderslie has submitted three applications for development involving a total of 11 commercial units, 48 tourist units and 212 residential units in the Ulladulla area.

Clearly a lot needs to be explained. The examples I have provided highlight how there is currently little to enforce transparency and accountability when local government candidates receive political donations from property development interests. If members are sincere about ending the damaging association between donations and developers, this bill deserves to be passed.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.25 a.m.], in reply: I thank all members who contributed to this debate. I find myself in the unusual position of replying to a debate during which no speaker raised any objection to any part of the bill, yet it appears that the bill may well be shuffled off to a committee. Having said that no objection was raised by any speaker, I should note also that the Labor Party chose not even to participate in the debate. I can certainly understand why no-one from the Labor Party wants to be the one who in this House defends the way the Government not only has allowed but also has actively promoted systemic corruption of the State's planning laws.

The record of favourable treatment for developers who are political donors, which has been outlined to the House in speeches by my Greens colleagues and the Opposition, presents an overwhelming case that political donations and conflicts of interest that arise from them have corrupted, and continue to corrupt, the planning system at all levels. I thank my Greens colleagues for their considered contributions to the debate. Ms Lee Rhiannon pointed out the level of proven corruption at local government level arising from developer donations. The so-called "Dirty Sexy Money" scandal, involving certain Wollongong Labor councillors and staff members, exposed for all to see the way in which corrupt developers and corrupt Labor Party members work together to get developments approved that should never have been approved. Ms Rhiannon pointed out that the corruption of the planning system at local government level does not begin, nor does it end, at Wollongong. There are ongoing concerns at other New South Wales councils about the way donations to the campaigns of certain councillors have led to perceived favourable treatment of donors.

Dr John Kaye focused on the State level, pointing out that since part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act was introduced in mid-2005, donations by property developers to the major political parties total more than $8.5 million. He also pointed out that since mid-2005 almost $3 billion worth of developments have been approved under part 3A of the Act for 13 developer companies who between them have passed more than $2 million in political donations to the political party whose Minister was determining their development applications! Dr Kaye also showed how developers who donate to the New South Wales Labor Party have a much higher success rate than non-donors in having their part 3A developments called in and approved.

The Labor Party's conflict of interest in this situation is blatant, inexcusable and irreparable. No wonder no-one from the Labor Party is willing to stand up and defend the blatant systemic corruption of the State's planning system. It appears that the Minister stands alone as the sole defender of this indefensible position, with not one of his colleagues rushing to get to their feet in this debate and defend him. Mr Ian Cohen focused on the way local communities are ignored when big developer donors come to town, and how easy it appears to be for a developer donor to have their pet project declared State significant whenever it appears that there is serious community opposition.

Speakers for the Opposition, the Hon. Don Harwin and the Hon. Marie Ficarra, and, for the Christian Democrats, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, expressed support for all aspects of the bill. I thank them for doing so. However, I must express my great disappointment that the Opposition and the Christian Democrats are not willing to convert their words to action. The bill does not need to go to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding for inquiry and report. The majority of the provisions of the bill—schedule 1 items [1] to [7]—do not fit within the terms of reference of that committee, so the committee cannot inquire into and report on them.

The provisions of the bill that fit within the terms of reference of the committee, that is schedule 1 item [8] of the bill, are clear, precise and simple. They run for less than one page. We do not need a committee to tell us what those provisions mean or how they will work. The real reason for seeking to refer this bill to a committee was made clear in the speech by the Hon. Don Harwin when he quoted the evidence of Dr Joo-Cheung Tham in the inquiry into electoral and political party funding.

I agree that what Dr Tham had to say is important and that the inquiry into electoral funding should address both the supply side and the demand side of the electoral funding equation. But we are not debating the broader electoral funding system now; we are debating whether or not a regime that allows political donations from developers who have development proposals under consideration by councillors or Ministers should continue. Unfortunately, the reference to Dr Tham's comments shows that the other parties remain motivated by what will be the impact of those changes on their campaign coffers and electoral prospects, rather than what will be the impact of those changes on cleaning up the State's discredited planning system.

The most disappointing aspect of the amendment moved by the Opposition and supported by the Christian Democrats is that it displays an unwillingness to act even when they agree that political donations are causing enormous damage to the planning system. Even as I speak development applications are sitting in front of councils and the Minister from proponents who continue to make donations to their political campaigns or those of their party. We can take action immediately to stop this disgraceful conflict of interest now before any further damage is done to the State's heritage and environment, and the public's confidence in the planning system and the political system generally.

As I asked in my second reading speech: Why should we continue to tolerate a regime that gives a cloak of legality to corruption-promoting activities? That question has not been answered because there is no satisfactory answer. We should not continue to tolerate such a regime. The Greens support moves for a broader ban on political donations and will welcome any further legislative changes to be brought forward by the Government, but we believe it is urgent that donations are removed from the planning system as soon as possible. The outcomes of the inquiry into electoral funding will not be known for some time. Implementation of any of the recommendations of that inquiry could take months or years, or they may never be implemented.

The Premier's promise to reform the donation system may go the same way as the north-west rail line and the Parramatta to Epping rail link. The recommendations for the electoral funding inquiry may go the same way as recommendations of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] that aim to reduce corruption risks in the planning system. The Premier is well known for big announcements that are never implemented and there is no evidence yet that the donations reforms will be any more real than the many other announcements from this Government that have disappeared without a trace. The Labor Party's refusal to support this bill shows it is so addicted to developer donations that it cannot stop itself, regardless of the damage being done to the public standing of the planning Minister and the Premier, let alone the environment and heritage of this State.

So we wait in hope for a new electoral funding system that will remove the disgraceful conflicts of interest that have brought the planning system into such disrepute. In the meantime, unless we take the sort of action that this bill represents, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of developments will be considered by councillors and Ministers under a system so corrupted in the public mind that the community sees the planning system as little more than a fundraising racket for politicians. Participants in this debate have not advanced any good reasons for allowing such a discredited system to continue to undermine public faith in the planning and broader political systems. I urge all members to make the transition from high-principled words to effective action. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Question—That the motion [That this bill be now read a second time] as amended be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Bill referred to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Funding for inquiry and report.