The Hon. Chris Rath: I am.

The Ho n. JOHN GRAHAM: I do not doubt the Opposition Whip's position. He is on a unity ticket with us. It is the rest of the Opposition we are concerned about. I was particularly relieved to hear the shadow Minister state his position because I am advised that in the recent budget estimates hearing, held the day after the announcement on Woollahra station was made, the planning Minister asked the shadow Minister eight different times whether the Liberals support more housing at Woollahra, and he got no answer. That is to the shadow Minister's credit.

The Hon. Scott Farlow: We ask the questions, you give the answers.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM: The shadow Minister should not have been distracted by the planning Minister challenging him to answer questions. Nonetheless, he ducked every challenge. I am informed that another 11 times during that session the shadow Minister failed to clarify whether the Opposition supports the rezoning plans. I am glad that he did not fall for the bait, but it did lead to questions, and not just about the actions of the shadow Minister but also those of many of his colleagues who have ducked for cover and are running that line anywhere but Woollahra.

I put a couple of things on record. Woollahra train station is slightly longer than the trains that will pull up to it. Sydney Water has confirmed that there is water and sewerage capacity. There is spare capacity of 72 per cent in seven of the local public schools and, of course, it has been well canvassed that the population of the area has declined by 11 per cent over the past 50 years, despite what we have seen across the rest of the State. That is why the Government is backing this plan. Even if this motion is successful, the Cabinet documents that pertain to the plan are unlikely to be produced. The Government looks forward to this discussion. We are happy to provide any additional details, but it would help if the shadow Minister would get the rest of his colleagues on board the train.

Ms SUE HIGGINSON ( 21:02 :23 ): In the interests of transparency, The Greens support this call for papers. We are particularly interested to see, through the production of these documents, whether the Minns Labor Government undertook any genuine deliberations on whether these 10,000 new homes will be genuinely affordable and whether there was consideration for public housing. The Greens are calling for a minimum commitment of 30 per cent of new homes to be affordable in perpetuity and 10 per cent to be public or not‑for‑profit social homes. The Labor‑Liberal duopoly only cares about housing supply when it involves taking a sledgehammer to safeguards in the planning system and giving handouts to big developers. When it means reform of the system to regulate Airbnbs, or to ensure climate resilience, biodiversity protection or inclusionary zonings for in‑fill development, all of a sudden, the duopoly is slightly less interested.

We know that Labor Premier Chris Minns personally intervened to remove protections for renters by removing the requirements for landlords to show proof when they evict renters in order to conduct "renovations". These are hardly the actions of a Premier with a genuine concern for the renters at the front line of the housing crisis. The problem with our planning system is not the so‑called red tape or the provisions that protect the environment; the problem with our planning system is that it overwhelmingly benefits developers and the extremely wealthy. Is that what is happening with the Woollahra plan? We will see when we get the documents. Of course we need to densify our cities to avoid the environmentally damaging urban sprawl that The Greens have been calling for an end to for so long, but we do not just need to increase density; we need to increase affordability and accessibility. By surrendering infill development space entirely to developers, we are asking the same people who got us into the housing crisis to get us out.

To rent a new unit in Woollahra costs $900 a week on average. Even at 80 per cent of market rate, that is enough to put a graduate nurse or a graduate teacher into housing stress. If the Minns Labor Government is looking for planning reform to actually increase housing affordability, then look no further than the thousands of empty Airbnb homes. According to data from Inside Airbnb, for every one rough sleeper in the Northern Rivers region, there are seven whole homes sitting empty; for every one rough sleeper on the Mid North Coast, there are 13 whole homes sitting empty; and for every one rough sleeper in Sydney, there are 11 whole homes sitting empty. I bet there are lots of them in Woollahra. We could unlock thousands of long-term rentals at no cost to the budget by taxing and regulating Airbnbs properly. We look forward to reviewing the returned documents from this call for papers.

The Hon. CHRIS RATH ( 21:05 :30 ): I move:

That the question be amended by inserting "Sydney Trains, Transport Asset Manager" after "Transport for NSW".

The amendment expands the call for papers ever so slightly. I back in the comments made by the shadow planning Minister. The Opposition is pro Woollahra train station. The best time to build the Woollahra train station would have been in the Wran Government; the second-best time to do it is now. But the Opposition is opposed to the complete lack of homework done by the Government. We will not get any documents, not because of Cabinet in confidence but because there are no documents and the Government has done no homework. Let us call this out for what it is: a political stunt and a gimmick to try to divide the Opposition. No serious work whatsoever has been done on this announcement.

It is a great idea. I have loved the idea for well over a decade. It is a fantastic idea. It should have been done in the '70s and it should be done now. But let us call it out for what it is. It is a gimmick, a stunt and typical wedge politics by those opposite. It has nothing to do with their concern for more housing in the eastern suburbs and nothing to do with building Woollahra train station. It was not even on the Government's agenda a couple of months ago. It certainly was not on its agenda a year ago when Sydney Water said that there could not be any more density in that part of Sydney.

Now, all of a sudden, the advice has changed and we apparently can have more density there. Of course we should upgrade that part of Sydney. Has anyone been to Edgecliff shops recently? It is revolting. We should have more density there. Even Woollahra Council suggests that Edgecliff needs to be redeveloped, with more density around the train station. It is an excellent idea. It should have been built in the '70s, but the second‑best time to build it is today. But let us call it out for what it is: a complete and utter political stunt. There are no documents because the Government has not done its homework.

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY ( 21:08 :16 ): I contribute to debate on the call for papers from the Opposition in relation to Woollahra train station. Why are Opposition members moving the call for papers? It is because this is obviously the next step in their "Anywhere but Woollahra" campaign. Despite what members have just heard, they were nowhere to be seen. They do not like Woollahra, so much so that they ended up concocting a crazy plan to shut down Long Bay jail in order to beef up their eastern suburbs cred on development. What is it going to take to get Opposition members on board? Where are they going to put prisoners from Long Bay jail? Maybe we need some brutalist architecture in Woollahra and we could build the jail there. It is accessible to the station. Would they support that? I doubt it, because they do not support development anywhere near their electorates. We have seen that through a succession of different things. They say they are yimbys. They used to be nimbys. What is the new term?

The Hon. Scott Farlow: ADIMBYs.

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY: ADIMBYs—appropriate development in my backyard. All of that is code for "I love housing, but do not build it in a Liberal Party electorate." All they stand for is sending it somewhere else. I will move an amendment because this motion under Standing Order 52 is far too wide. I move:

That the question be amended by:

(1)Omitting "the Deputy Premier, Minister for Education and Early Learning and Minister for Western Sydney, the Treasurer,";

(2)Omitting "the Minister for Health, Minister for Regional Health, and Minister for the Illawarra and the South Coast,";

(3)Omitting "the Minister for Finance, Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Domestic Manufacturing and Government Procurement, the Minister for Customer Service and Digital Government, Minister for Emergency Services and Minister for Youth Justice,";

(4)Omitting "the Department of Education, Treasury,";

(5)Omitting "the Ministry of Health,";

(6)Omitting "the Department of Customer Service,"; and

(7)Omitting "Sydney Water, or the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water".

It is an appropriate amendment to confine this fishing expedition under a Standing Order 52 call for papers that is extraordinary in its breadth. It will allow the Government to sensibly manage the ridiculous campaign of the Liberals to try to strike some level of credibility when they just do not support development in any of their electorates.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM ( 21:11 :33 ): I raise a number of issues, the first one being the blitzkrieg of motions under Standing Order 52 coming from the Opposition. I remind members of the supercilious words of Oscar Wilde, who said that the job of a critic is to educate the public but the job of an artist is to educate the critics. The critics in the Opposition have run out of ideas. In the absence of any policy ideas, they are throwing sand into the gears of every idea that comes along. When an idea comes along, they scramble around and say, "Let's turn Long Bay jail into housing." It is an absolute farce. The Hon. Chris Rath put it better than anyone could. He said, "There are no documents. We don't expect there to be any documents." They are actually looking for nothing; they are hoping to find nothing.

The Hon. Chris Rath: The Minister said that.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: That is what you said. The Hon. Chris Rath said that it has all been so rushed that there cannot be anything there. He is hoist on his own petard. The real issue is that the Liberals are terrified of development in Woollahra, one of their blue-ribbon electorates, and they are not the only ones. Lord Shoebridge of Woollahra is leading the Waverley Greens out, like many times before, against any sort of density in that rotten borough. While we are talking about Woollahra, it would be a really good idea to abolish the council.

We should amalgamate the eastern suburbs councils of Woollahra, Waverley and Randwick, with a bit of rate redistribution to make sure that the people at the southern end of the electorate get some of the amenities and services that the people on the harbour do. But the Liberals do not want to do that. They did not do it. The Hon. Chris Rath says, "Why was this not done in 1975?" Why was it not done in 2015? Why did the Coalition not do it when in government? That is because it was terrified of the blue-ribbon electorate, as it is now. The Opposition has been hoisted on its own petard, and it should come up with some ideas rather than throw sand in the gears, like The Greens, of any half-decent idea that comes along.

The Hon. ROSE JACKSON (Minister for Water, Minister for Housing, Min ister for Homelessness, Minister for Mental Health, and Minister for Youth) ( 21:14 :30 ): I speak in opposition to this Standing Order 52 motion. The Hon. Scott Farlow described it as a straightforward motion. What is not straightforward is the Opposition's position on this particular proposal. I could not agree more with the comments made by my colleague the Minister for Transport that the Opposition is obviously attempting to try to find some way to credibly oppose the proposal. That is clearly the agenda. The Opposition has no way of threading the needle in its position on this issue, so its members are desperately trying to trawl through whatever documents they can come up with to justify a position of opposing housing.

I appreciate that members opposite have said they support the train station. They are more than happy with transport infrastructure being delivered in their electorates. But God forbid we work to combine investment in transport infrastructure with housing uplift, which has been a core principle of our Government's approach to housing since day one and is consistently objected to by the Opposition. In some ways, when it comes to these housing conversations, I feel like we cannot win. We come out with a proposal, and we are clear about our vision to consistently invest in transport and housing that sits alongside, but we rightfully say we want to have a conversation. Much as I am tempted by some of what the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham has put on the record, we rightfully say there is a role for dialogue with organisations like local councils. Yet when we do that and say this is our vision and our proposition and that we want dialogue to fill in the details, based on that feedback, we are lambasted for not having the detail.

The alternative would be that we did all of that detailed work without the conversation that we are committed to having with the community, and we would be criticised yet again—"You have made all the decisions. All the detail is there. Everything is done. There is no place for community dialogue." In an effort to be a sensible government with a clear vision and a clear commitment to delivering housing alongside transport infrastructure, we come out and set the vision. Our agenda is clear, and we create the space for dialogue with the local community. Yet we still cannot get a clear position from the Opposition about whether or not this is a proposition that it can support. We do not want to waste time trawling through documents to try to fix the Opposition's internal problems. We want to spend our time fixing the State's problems by delivering housing alongside transport infrastructure.

The Hon. WES FANG ( 21:17 :25 ): It takes three Labor members before I am given the call. Deputy President Kaine has actually done me a favour by letting the Minister for Housing speak before me because, ultimately, she belled the cat on this issue. The Minister said, "The Opposition will not be able to thread the needle." The Hon. Chris Rath was right: This is simply a political wedge by Labor. I do not think there is any plan for housing at Woollahra by the Labor Party, because this is simply a wedge against the Liberal Party. I have absolutely no skin in the game. I do not care how many houses the Government builds in Woollahra. I do not care. The idea is that we are talking about some blue-ribbon electorate. Well, it is just another electorate. There are 93 seats in this State. Whatever electorate Woollahra is in—Vaucluse—does not matter. It is just another electorate, and it just another set of housing for me.

What I want to know is what planning has been done on this proposal. We saw what this Government did with Rosehill. Those opposite lined up, had their big press conference, and what did they do 18 months later? Absolutely nothing. How much time was wasted on that proposal by those opposite? The Hon. Cameron Murphy has moved an amendment to the motion to narrow its scope. That is because, ultimately, he also knows that there are no documents. By narrowing the scope, we prove the point that there are no documents there—"Nothing was returned, but we narrowed the scope".

Ultimately, the scope could be as wide as the whole government and we would probably get the same number of documents back anyway, because that is ultimately all there was. There was literally no work done on this. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham says that the Opposition just wants to throw sand in the gears of the Government by moving this order for papers. Ultimately, all the Opposition is doing is asking for documents. No‑one is trying to put a handbrake on the development. I do not even see any development happening. I do not know what plans there are; that is what we are trying to find out.

The last point I will make is that the Federal Government now has Ministers and assistant Ministers. In the New South Wales jurisdiction, we have Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. Maybe we should do what has been done in the Federal sphere and bring in assistant Ministers. We could pretty much call every Minister other than the Premier an assistant Minister, because the Premier is effectively like Scott Morrison: He gives himself every portfolio and runs everything in this place. All the Ministers are only assistant Ministers in this place. We see Chris Minns make an announcement and override a Minister at every opportunity. Let us see exactly how much Chris Minns has done in relation to this.

The Hon. JOHN GRAHAM (Special Minister of State, Minister for Transport, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Music and the Night-time Economy) ( 21:20 :34 ): I will speak briefly to the amendment to make three points. Firstly, this policy has been 50 years in the making. We are told to do our homework. The Opposition could rewind the date from 28 March 2023 to 28 March 1975 and they would get even more papers this time around. Secondly, Opposition members' argument is so scattergun. They have scooped up 10 Ministers. Surely, they could be a little bit more laser guided. Finally, we will not be lectured about doing our homework when Opposition members had to move an amendment to include Sydney Trains. This is a call for papers about a train station and they forgot to put Sydney Trains in the motion. They should forget the "do your homework" routine.

The Hon. BOB NANVA ( 21:21 :33 ): I want to make a calmer and more considered contribution in opposing the motion, but the very fact that the Opposition is going down this path is as clear an indication as we can possibly get of how fraught an issue housing and planning is for the Liberal Party. Depending on the political circumstance, the Opposition has sought shelter behind every single iteration of "‑imbyism" we could conceive of—nimbys, yimbys, adimbys and qimbys—and is desperately twisting, turning and contorting out of taking a consistent and coherent stand on any transport oriented housing proposal. In the end, the best strategy the Opposition has to resolve the housing conundrum is to say that it supports new projects in principle but opposes them in practice. It happens every single time and that is exactly where the Opposition is going here. It is on a desperate fishing expedition to find a reason, as specious as it is, to oppose Woollahra station and more density in the eastern suburbs.

On the Government side of the Chamber, we have no such dilemmas. We recognise that Sydney is going through a housing crisis. We know the key to managing Sydney's future growth lies in having the right planning laws in place, making sure there is transport infrastructure and services in place before new housing is built, leveraging our investment in existing infrastructure and having the courage to stand up for the next generation of Sydneysiders, who do not want to pack up and move interstate because they cannot afford to buy a home in Sydney. What is more, this Government has learnt from the planning mistakes of the past. The story of Sydney's notorious ghost station at Woollahra is a telling case study of those mistakes.

When the eastern suburbs line was being built in 1979—I agree with the Opposition Whip—Woollahra residents fought to make sure their suburbs were bypassed and public transport users were forced to walk to either Edgecliff or Bondi Junction. Since then, the population of Woollahra has declined while the rest of Sydney has boomed. No‑one can seriously argue that inner city areas like Woollahra cannot do more to meet Sydney's housing needs. But doing more should not be seen as a burden, as it is in some communities and as it is for the Opposition. It should be seen as an opportunity. It is an opportunity for a renewal. It is an opportunity for a more appropriate residential mix of medium density housing. It is an opportunity to renew areas and to breathe new life into them through cafes, bars and restaurants. It is an opportunity for a sleepy place like Woollahra to come springing back to life just like other town centres have, particularly those in my backyard in Western Sydney.

The Hon. EM ILY SUVAAL ( 21:24 :49 ): I am glad we have had this very fruitful discussion tonight. We finally flushed out the policy position of those opposite, which is that they want station upgrades but not housing. They say, "Won't someone think of the local shops? Won't someone think about the poor state of Edgecliff shops?" Kellie Sloane, the member for Vaucluse in the other place, opposed development in her part of the world because there was no supermarket. Opposition members will think of any excuse—"Won't someone think about the poor state of the local supermarkets?" The "anywhere but Woollahra" policy of members opposite speaks volumes. Members need not just take the Government's word. Eamon Waterford from Committee for Sydney said:

This could be the breakthrough Sydney's east so desperately needs, taking areas with great amenity and making them part of the solution to our housing crisis.

…

It's going to take clever ideas like this, opening up a planned train line that's been sitting in plain sight for decades—

including the time when those opposite were in government—

to unlock the housing Sydney so desperately needs.

Tom Forrest from Urban Taskforce said the project is "a clear sign we have turned a corner when it comes to planning and housing in infill Sydney". It goes on and on. [Time expired.]

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW ( 21:26 :18 ): In reply: Government members have obviously been able to achieve their key performance indicators tonight, being able to talk out a motion and carry on like pork chops. This Government wants so desperately to try to wedge us that even when we are saying, "Yes, we support it. Yes, we support the resulting density of it", they still have to carry on as if somehow they have got the Opposition with this great wedge issue. They say, "We've been able to wedge them!", even when it is not true. Opposition members in this House are saying, "Have you done your homework on this? We want to actually see what the documents are."

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine ): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: We are told there are no documents, but then the Hon. Cameron Murphy tell us, "Oh, by the way, it's a fishing expedition. We've got to have an amendment to limit your scope because there will be too many documents." Then the Hon. John Graham says, "Let's get these resolutions back to the 1970s", when Neville Wran axed the project. Government members cannot have it both ways. They do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha when it comes to this proposal and what is actually on the table, which is effectively a very simple proposition to provide us with the documents to show us what capacity assessments have been done and how it got to 10,000; what it will mean for local schools and for local roads; whether there is sufficient water and sewerage capacity; and what the train station capacity is in the area.

Those are all very sensible questions that one would expect the Government would be up-front in answering. But instead, as we see with this Government every single time, it wants to hide them away. They want a big, glossy announcement, but they do not want to do the work behind the scenes. We hope they have done the work. We would like to see the documents, just to provide the community with more information. As the Hon. Wes Fang mentioned, we have seen this all before, such as the big, glossy announcement about Rosehill racecourse. There are big, glossy announcements, nothing is done behind the scenes, and we have a government chasing a mirage.

The Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and his representatives in this House might like to talk about budget estimates—I know he is very frustrated and would love to be in the upper House and ask questions in budget estimates—but we all know that when it comes to budget estimates the Opposition and crossbench members ask the questions and the Ministers answer them, not the other way around. I know that Minister loves to come to budget estimates, not answer very much and pose questions to everybody else. He has taken the Brad Hazzard approach when it comes to budget estimates but—

The Hon. Wes Fang: He's not that good.

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: I note that interjection. At the end of the day, we want to see some simple documents to educate all of us—the crossbench and the Opposition, and maybe even the Government.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine ): Ms Cate Faehrmann and Ms Sue Higginson will cease their audible conversation so that we can put the question. Some other members also rate an honourable mention. It would be appreciated if members could keep the volume of their conversation down so we can get through this wacky Wednesday.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Scott Farlow has moved a motion, to which the Hon. Cameron Murphy and the Hon. Chris Rath have moved amendments. The question is that the amendment of the Hon. Cameron Murphy be agreed to.

The House divided.

Ayes15

Noes20

Majority5

Amendment of the Hon. Cameron Murphy negatived.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the amendment of the Hon. Chris Rath be agreed to. Is leave granted to ring the bells for one minute?

Leave granted.

The House divided.

Ayes20

Noes15

Majority5

Amendment of the Hon. Chris Rath agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the motion as amended be agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.