Liberal minister John Sidoti to be quizzed over Chinese donation scandal
The NSW Liberal Party has been forced to pay back a donation from the developer in business with Cabinet Minister John Sidoti on a $70 million property deal in Rouse Hill.
NSW
Don't miss out on the headlines from NSW. Followed categories will be added to My News.
The NSW Liberal Party has been forced to pay back a donation from the developer in business with Cabinet Minister John Sidoti on a $70 million property deal in Rouse Hill.
The embarrassing forfeit came after The Daily Telegraph today revealed the source of the $1750 donation at a campaign fundraising dinner for Mr Sidoti in 2015 was his Chinese developer business partner Ming Shang.
Donations from developers are banned in NSW and Mr Shang is vice president of the parent group on the Rouse Hill development, Southern Han International.
“The NSW Liberal Party takes our obligations under the state electoral funding and disclosure laws very seriously, and having become aware of an incorrectly received donation we have been working with the NSW Electoral Commission to forfeit that donation,” a spokesman for the NSW Liberal Party said.
Planning Minister Rob Stokes earlier today vowed to “ask questions” on what Mr Sidoti knew about pending favourable rezonings when he bought land for $4.1 million that is now the site of a $70 million high-rise redevelopment.
Mr Stokes also vowed to investigate The Daily Telegraph’s revelation today that Mr Sidoti was in business on the deal with a Chinese developer who made a banned donation to the Liberal Party at a campaign fundraiser for the since promoted NSW Minister for Sports, Seniors, Veterans and Multicultural.
In a Budget Estimates hearing today Mr Stokes was quizzed repeatedly on the $1750 donation from Mr Shang and the Mr Sidoti’s share of the $4.1 million investment in land at Rouse Hill.
MORE NEWS:
Jockey’s loved-up calls cost her ride in Melbourne Cup
Socialite’s cocaine arrest case spreads to the U.S.
Crossbench push to declare ‘climate emergency’
Greens MP David Shoebridge said: “You do agree that the reason we have a ban on property developer donations is because they have a history of corrupting the planning system?”
But he said Mr Stokes had not even called Mr Sidoti to discuss the donation before appearing at the hearing.
Mr Stokes said: “I have not called Mr Sidoti, I am not in the habit of calling Mr Sidoti when I read matters in the paper.”
But he conceded that he would look at the issue and report it to the Independent Commission Against Corruption if it “triggered his duties” to do so.
During the estimates hearing, Mr Shoebridge asked what knowledge Mr Sidoti had, in his previous role as Parliamentary Secretary for Planning, about the rezoning of the land Mr Sidoti’s company had bought and if the minister was aware the “Parliamentary Secretary for Planning was cooking up a property deal?”
“Do you accept it has a stinking smell of corruption?” He asked.
“Did a light bulb go off anywhere in your department and say ‘there is a problem here?’”
Mr Stokes said: “It falls to the Planning Department to decide applications on their merits not to ask the identity of the applicant.”
He did however take a string of detailed questions about the property deal on notice and said: “I am certainly very happy to ask questions under the obligations under the act.”
Labor MP Penny Sharpe said: “Surely you are concerned reports like this undermine fundamentally the public’s faith in the planning system?”
The hearing also quizzed government owned developer Landcom chief executive John Brogden over a deal with a Chinese developer that has virtually wiped out any proceeds the government will make.
Mr Brogden said the $300 million deal was capped because “it was our view from the beginning that we were selling a set number of hectares” and that Landcom would pay infrastructure per hectare.
However, a change in rules meant the infrastructure would have to be provided per dwelling — blowing out the cost.
Mr Brogden said the decision had not put Landcom at the mercy of the developer. “It puts us at the mercy of the department,” he said.