If the public is to have confidence in the transparency and accountability of the major projects planning process, they need to be confident the promised checks and balances exist.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But if the Planning Department is merely paying lip service to the rules on political donations, people may continue to lose faith in a system with a reputation that has been battered over the past decade.
The department says it does not consider donations when making decisions on developments.
The Mercury is not suggesting the donations have at all influenced any decisions on the Kembla Grange application.
But previous matters including the Calderwood fiasco, which included a senior officer from the department calling to encourage Shellharbour City Council to approve the development, have left a stain.
That is why the Coalition came to power in NSW promising to rid the state of Part 3A powers under which the minister could approve a development at the stroke of a pen. But the similar "Major Projects" process remains.
The reason donations must be declared is so the public can check things themselves, in the name of transparency and accountability.
It's the difference between a department saying "trust us" while remaining completely opaque, and a department where citizens can see how things are done properly.
These "checks" and "balances" are worthless if nobody is checking.
If the Mercury had not inquired about the Kembla Grange donations, the assessment would have gone ahead as planned under the major projects system.
It wasn't just an incorrect declaration, although there appears to have been one of those. It was a complete absence of a political donations declaration accompanying the application.
This was visible to anyone who checked the website.
The department is still refusing to answer questions about when the correct declarations were received, and how often this has happened.
It should be obvious that relying on applicants to comply with the rules is not enough to ensure integrity and transparency.
What sport relies on the players to obey the rules, with no referee?
It remains to be seen whether any action is taken over the omission, which concerned a single political party membership.
Asked how many people had been penalised for false declarations, the department said it had happened twice.
The Mercury asked the Planning Department if it could assure the public the political donations disclosure system was sound and effective, or whether there needed to be a greater oversight process. We did not receive a reply.
