NSW planning: Right wing and a prayer?

Due to come into effect from October 1, they require anyone lodging or commenting on a D.A. to declare any political donations or gifts made in the previous two years.

Keneally promoted these as part of a post-Iemma culture shift, saying “they form just one part of the Rees Government's reform on political donations and it's all about bringing the process of donations in planning out into the open”.

But the initiative is not Keneally’s under Rees but Sartor’s under Iemma, prepared before his ejection from the ministry in early September.

And three days after Kenneally’s announcement, the NSW Greens have stolen her thunder, referring six development approvals made by her predecessor to ICAC. Three of these, claim the Greens, were granted contrary to departmental recommendations.

Rosecorp and Stockland are two of the parties named by Greens MP Sylvia Hale, with donations of $143,500 and $137,500 respectively made to NSW Labor while planning decisions were allegedly pending.

Hale is critical of the choice of Ms Keneally for Planning Minister.

“With Mr Sartor removed from the Ministry there was an opportunity for Labor to appoint a new Minister with no connections to developers and their donations,” said Hale. “Ms Kenneally is the wrong choice for this portfolio. Her appointment suggests that while the faces may have changed, the system hasn’t. Political donations will continue to corrupt the state’s planning system.”

Research by Norman Thompson, director of the Greens Democracy4Sale research project, identified Ms Keneally as receiving donations from Frank Sartor’s campaign as well as developers and hoteliers during the lead up to the March 2007 elections. At the same time, her campaign was making donations to candidates of the ALP left faction - Carmel Tebbutt, Verity Firth, but most notably over $21,000 to Sydney ALP candidate Linda Scott, whose platform proclaimed non-contamination by donations from developers and hoteliers.

“One thing to be aware of is that many candidates raise money through the parties’ head offices,” said Thompson. “Labor candidates started doing it in 2007 and more probably will from now on. It hides the money trail.”

Hence, tens of thousands of dollars in disclosed donations are small change, creating a false sense of transparency.

“For example,” continues Thompson, “Iemma and Sartor had huge money-raising dinners in the lead up to the 2007 election. The net from Sartor's was over $700,000 and the net from Iemma's was over $900,000. None of that money shows up in their individual returns - it was reported by Sussex St.”

Answering generally, the Pacific director of NGO Transparency International concurred that opacity feeds distrust, saying that “without disclosing the source and amount of political donation, people cannot judge whether there is a conflict of interest in the public procurement of projects granted”.

No textbook corruption - “here is my money, where is my favour?” - has been proven with regard to any sitting Labor, or Liberal MP, in the current parliament. But when major construction firms donate half a million dollars to both sides of parliament, it begs the question “where do the failures in democracy lie?” In an individual legally demonstrable to have acted corruptly, or in a process so clouded by potential for bias and antisocial outcomes that nobody can be blamed for doubting its legitimacy?

Substantive questions remained unanswered by the Minister’s office and the Department of Premier and Cabinet at the time of going to press.