Mr GREG WARREN (Campbelltown) (12:06): My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. Will the Minister advise the House on how the Minns Labor Government is making it easier and faster to deliver the infrastructure that supports housing growth across New South Wales?
Mr PAUL SCULLY (Wollongong—Minister for Planning and Public Spaces) (12:08): I thank the member for Campbelltown for the question. I live in a part of the world and a part of New South Wales that has experienced the problems communities have when homes come first and infrastructure follows. This was the philosophical position of members opposite when they were in government. Their position was build the homes and worry about the rest later on. Do not worry about the parks and do not worry about communities fighting for years and years for basic services. Our reforms, on the other hand, allow developers to build roads—which the Minister for Roads is delivering—provide open space, and to dedicate land for schools and emergency services. Where developers are building homes, we are allowing for infrastructure to be built at the same time or very close to that time. It gives industry certainty and it allows for the fast-tracking of that infrastructure. Industry has backed that. The Urban Development Institute of Australia said about our reforms, "They are critical to providing new homes." We saw what happened when communities were left behind under the Opposition. Homes were built, roads were not. Homes were built, schools were not. Homes were built, hospitals were not. People only need to look around the place.
That is why we are investing $81 million a day on average to make sure there is infrastructure for growing communities. Since March 2023, New South Wales and the Commonwealth have committed $1.6 billion to generate a $3.9 billion infrastructure investment pipeline, supporting more than 700,000 homes. We have already delivered $687 million to councils and agencies to complete nearly 300 local infrastructure projects. The education Minister is busy building or rebuilding 230 schools. We have 30 new or rebuilt hospitals underway. But there are alternative approaches being proposed.
The shadow Minister for Planning and Public Spaces has said the Opposition is "looking at different options" to fund infrastructure needed to support housing growth, including asset sales. You have to wonder how it is that voters can have any confidence in a plan when its funding model is still in the options phase. Of course, one option that is absolutely guaranteed, as sure as night follows day, if that mob opposite get back into government is they will sell off the farm and privatise everything. If it moves, they will privatise it. If it does not, they will push it. Privatisation is coming back. In stark contrast, the Government is delivering infrastructure alongside housing as a result of infrastructure contribution reforms that it has made. [Extension of time]
Our infrastructure reforms were not universally popular, but they were the right thing to do because they enabled us to not repeat the mistakes of the past that created infrastructure deficit. Our housing and productivity contribution scheme is purpose built to fund roads, schools, transport, open space and active transport. It has strong backing by those who have long considered how best to pay for our infrastructure needs. In fact, the NSW Productivity and Equality Commission released a report debunking the Opposition's argument that our reforms are a handbrake on housing. The section of the report was titled "Waiving contributions increases land prices, not housing supply"—that was its name. The commission said:
… when designed well, as NSW contributions are, infrastructure contributions do not reduce new housing supply. By the same token, waiving contributions does not boost housing supply.
There it is, clear as day. The housing and productivity contribution was carefully phased in, with discounts to protect feasibility. When members opposite were in government, they suggested a scheme in a very similar form, with then Treasurer Matt Kean saying, "We're not going to apologise for investing in the infrastructure that will bring on new housing supply." The member for Lane Cove, when he was the Minister for Planning, was a great advocate for it. He was such a strong advocate, in fact, he booked $1 billion in revenue in the pre-election budget. But now they say something different. They propose it one day and oppose it the next, hoping that no-one will notice their opposite positions on the same issue.
The SPEAKER: There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Members will come to order.
Mr PAUL SCULLY: Let us be clear: The housing and productivity contribution scheme is a fair, broad‑based contribution per home so that government can plan and deliver infrastructure. The Opposition's only infrastructure plan is to sell what we have and not build what communities need. They have put forward a solution that no-one is backing and no-one has asked for because everyone understands their solution will create infrastructure deficits for growing communities.
