Dean Smith: Birth rate in WA falls alongside the standard of living
According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1,486 fewer babies were born here in 2024 than in 2023.
The ABS also reveals WA's total fertility rate reached a record low of 1.57 babies per woman over the same period.
It reinforces similar statistics released by the WA Government earlier this year, which confirmed that the number of births recorded here in 2024 was the lowest in nearly two decades.
At the same time, there has been a record surge in the State's population, with a growth rate of 2.4 per cent — the largest annual growth rate of any Australian State or Territory in 2024.
Most of that was international or interstate migration, with the ABS reporting the natural increase in the WA population, which factors in births and deaths, was just 2602 for the December 2024 quarter.
That is the lowest number recorded since the June 1981 quarter.
It is no coincidence that, as the birthrate has been falling, so has the standard of living for West Australians.
This is the reality of life under Anthony Albanese and Labor, who have failed to address a cost-of-living crisis that shows no sign of easing.
What was once predominantly a personal decision — when or whether to start a family — is now increasingly an economic calculation.
A growing number of WA couples are putting off having children or deciding not to have them at all, not because they do not want to, but because they feel they cannot afford it.
It follows a trend of falling fertility rates across Australia, but one that is pronounced in our State — which, according to some economic markers, has also been one of the worst impacted by economic hardship since Labor came to power.
Soaring rents, mortgages, groceries, childcare and education fees, and ever-increasing utility bills, are combining to form an economic wall that many young families are no longer willing or able to climb.
Perth's median house price has risen to $781,000 according to REIWA.
First home buyers, on average, must now save more than $150,000 for a 20 per cent deposit on a median-priced Perth house.
Renters are not faring any better.
Perth has one of the tightest rental markets in the country with vacancy rates hovering around 0.5 per cent.
Average weekly rents have increased by more than 20 per cent over the past 12 months, pushing a growing number of people into housing insecurity.
Due to a shortage of available rental properties, rent for a median-priced house increased by nearly $200 to $685 per week between 2022 and now.
Wholesale electricity prices have doubled since 2021, impacting households, businesses, and individuals.
A study of 2025-26 WA power bills by Econnex found a typical household using about 5700 kWh a year will pay just over $2200 annually.
While residential customers have been shielded to an extent by subsidies, these are ending, and households will soon face the same cost increases that businesses have been experiencing.
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that WA exports a large portion of its gas, leading to higher domestic prices.
When you are facing these challenges, potentially living from pay-to-pay, the idea of taking time off work for maternity leave, let alone covering the ongoing costs of raising a child, is a daunting one.
That is before you consider childcare and education expenses.
Here in WA, out of pocket costs remain high, even after the Albanese Government's flawed subsidies programs.
Full time child care for working parents in Perth can cost upwards of $500 a week, per child.
For those without extended family support or flexible work options, the maths often does not add up.
Even when considering public schooling, there is no such things as a 'free' education.
Extra costs, including uniforms, technology, textbooks, excursions, camps, transport and even voluntary contributions, need to be considered, and the latest Futurity Investment Group Cost of Education Index reveals that Perth is Australia's second most expensive city for a State-funded public education.
It is estimated the total cost of a public education here will be $122,106 over 13 years for a child starting school in 2025, an increase of 35 per cent compared to last year.
This financial pressure is not evenly distributed and falls hardest on low-income families, single income households, and young people in insecure employment — the groups who have traditionally been more likely to have children earlier in life.
While some might say this is simply a matter of choice, framing the decline in births as a lifestyle preference misses the point.
The truth is that many WA families are not choosing to be child-free, they are being priced out of parenthood.
This is a social shift with long term implications.
Australia already faces a demographic time bomb, with an ageing population and shrinking workforce.
If an increasing number of the younger generation feel they can no longer afford to have children, we risk entering a cycle of economic stagnation, where there are fewer taxpayers to fund the health, education, and other systems that underpin our society.
That is why the Albanese Government needs to recognise this as not just a demographic concern but an urgent economic issue.
Now re-elected with significant majority, it now has no excuse but to act.
We need targeted policies to address cost-of-living pressures, including housing and energy.
Our economy depends on people — on workers, parents, consumers, and carers.
If WA is to remain a place where people can build full and flourishing lives, the decision to have children must be supported – not sidelined – by the economic reality.
The next generation is already being shaped not by dreams of what is possible, but by fears of what is unaffordable.
Until Labor changes that, the growing silence of empty nurseries across WA will speak volumes.
Dean Smith is a Liberal Senator for WA.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
14 minutes ago
- Perth Now
One thing Aussies no longer do
Divorces are becoming less common because of the heightened cost of living, an Australian lawyer says, with government data backing up the anecdotal evidence. 'The question we're hearing more and more is: Can either of us afford to live after this?' family law specialist Kylie Burke said. 'In 2025, we're seeing more disputes over school fees, medical costs and even basic shared-care logistics – because everyone is under pressure.' Government data shows divorce rates in 2023 hit their lowest since the mid-70s. The rate of divorce in Australia has decelerated over the past few decades but not as abruptly as the marriage rate. NewsWire / Brenton Edwards Credit: News Corp Australia In 1975, no-fault divorce was written into law, removing the need to prove adultery or desertion, meaning divorces could be granted because of irreconcilable differences. Divorce rates fell by almost half over the next decade and have gradually tapered down since, as the overall marriage rate continues to dip at an even quicker rate. In 1976, 6.3 people (aged over 16) per 1000 got divorced versus 13 people per 1000 getting married. In 2023, 2.3 people per 1000 called it quits, while 5.5 per 1000 tied the knot. Burke Mangan Lawyers partner Ms Burke said she was seeing more and more couples stay together because they could not afford to live separately. Australian marriage rates have fallen about one-third since the turn of the century. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia 'Dividing assets is just one part of the picture now – it's also about ensuring both parties can afford to live, support the children and plan for their financial future,' she said. 'With rents up 30 per cent in some capital cities and lending conditions tight, many people are being forced to stay under the same roof – even after they've split. 'The old model, where one person keeps the home and the other rents nearby, is increasingly off the table.' Living together after separation was called 'financial flatmates' among lawyers, and 'fraught with emotional and legal risk'. 'It might feel like a short-term fix, but without proper agreements in place, they often lead to major conflict down the track,' she said.
Sydney Morning Herald
24 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Pay more for your water or boil it? The unpalatable choice behind Sydney's water woes
In March 2021, as 'one-in-100-year' floods across Sydney's eastern seaboard followed hard on bushfires and drought, Sydney Water and the then-Coalition government were preparing for the worst: telling some of the 5 million users to boil their drinking water to ensure its safety. 'This is something you'd only expect in the Third World,' said one source, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail private deliberations. The narrowly avoided boil water notice, exceedingly rare for a state capital, would have been the first in Sydney since 1998, when a citywide warning was issued after pathogens that can cause nausea and severe diarrhoea were detected in supply from Macquarie Street to Palm Beach. Now, Sydney Water has begun briefing stakeholders that a draft decision by pricing regulator IPART, slashing the state-owned utility's planned capital expenditure by 35 per cent, or $5.9 billion, again raises the risk of Sydneysiders having to boil water during extreme rainfall events. The problem: the state-owned corporation funds infrastructure upgrades through raising water bills, an unpalatable choice for any government, and Sydney Water was proposing a 50 per cent increase over five years. NSW Premier Chris Minns wrote to IPART in August urging it to make 'cost-of-living impacts' a first-order consideration. Released in May, IPART's draft determination proposed limiting household bill rises to 23 per cent. The final decision is expected in September, with increases taking effect on October 1. Experts and peak bodies say the fallout will be twofold: reduced expenditure will limit the renewal of ageing pipes, plants and sewers with potentially disastrous consequences, and investment in new infrastructure will not be enough to support NSW's commitment to build 263,000 homes across Sydney Water's network by 2029. The question for bill payers is this: should we get used to paying more for water to secure its supply now, or risk passing on the cost, and possible catastrophe, to future customers? And in a housing crisis, Sydney Water and its stakeholders are asking why the government and IPART have pulled the handbrake on critical infrastructure for the construction of homes. Support for housing growth Housing supply is at the centre of Sydney Water's price proposal – the areas it covers will contribute most of the state government's commitments under the National Housing Accord. Before this year's budget, NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey enthused that the next 10 years would be about delivering the 'pipes and poles' for much-needed housing, saying the government's 'rule of thumb' was that anything former Labor premier Neville Wran built in the 1970s and '80s would be replaced. But the 2025-2026 budget did not deliver any significant funding to make up the expenditure reduction proposed by IPART's draft determination. Many of the experts interviewed for this article said the Minns government's housing targets were not achievable with this reduced capital. Urban Taskforce chief executive Tom Forrest said IPART's proposal would deliver considerably less than 263,000, or even the 191,000 he considered realistic in the current market. 'You can't say we've got a housing supply crisis, and it's the biggest challenge that our government faces, and then say: 'Oh, but we're not going to fund Sydney Water, and we're not going to allow [it] to raise the money through rates,' ' Forrest said. Without adequate funding for infrastructure, building houses in growth areas would be irresponsible, said Stuart Khan, head of civil engineering at the University of Sydney. 'We definitely don't want to get into a situation where wastewater infrastructure lags behind housing infrastructure. We've seen that happen in parts of Sydney,' he said. Inner Sydney councils including Woollahra have already expressed concern about a possible strain on water infrastructure from new dwellings in their objections to the government's low- and mid-rise housing reforms. But LGAs such as Wollondilly on Sydney's south-western fringe are evidence of the problems that could eventuate if water infrastructure does not keep up with housing demand. The shire contains two areas rezoned in 2023 as growth areas, in the towns of Wilton and Appin. In Wilton, where the population of 5000 is expected to multiply elevenfold by 2040, 12,000 lots without wastewater connections were rezoned as residential, meaning newly built houses now have their sewage trucked out regularly. Wollondilly Shire Mayor Matt Gould said work to temporarily expand a nearby treatment plant would only be able to service three-quarters of the lots once complete. 'We're willing to do our fair share to address the housing crisis, but we have an infrastructure crisis that is preventing the capacity to ... deliver.' So what has given the state government and IPART the confidence that housing can be delivered without the infrastructure? Outdated housing forecasts, said Property Council NSW executive director Katie Stevenson, noting IPART's draft decision is based on the Greater Sydney Housing Supply forecast in 2023, which 'came well before the NSW government's major suite of housing reforms' and predicted 172,900 homes over the six years to 2029. But the modelling underpinning IPART's draft report takes a more conservative approach, estimating 120,000 additional homes will be built by 2029. Sydney Water based its pricing proposal on the government's updated commitment. Peter Davies, a professor of sustainability at Macquarie University, said the state government and IPART had rewarded this foresight by leaving the utility 'between a rock and a hard place'. A spokesperson for the Minns government rejected the 120,000 figure, saying an assessment by Infrastructure NSW had found housing from its transport-oriented development and low- and mid-rise rezoning could be accommodated 'without the need for major new water infrastructure investment'. 'Sydney Water has a responsibility to ensure that its water infrastructure pipeline does not hold up the delivery of new homes,' they said. Upgrading Sydney's ageing water infrastructure Sydney's water infrastructure is, by modern standards, ancient. The CBD's Bennelong Point Sewerage System became the first planned system to dispose of Sydney's sewage in 1857, one year before the construction of London's modern sewerage system. It still handles stormwater today. But Khan said most infrastructure went in 50 years ago. 'It's coming up towards end of life, or it's gradually going to reach end of life over the next 20 or 30 years,' he said. Stuart Wilson, deputy director of the Water Services Association of Australia said no one, including IPART and the state government, was denying the need to renew this infrastructure. 'It's an argument about in this three- to five-year period or the next three- to five-year period … For a relatively small benefit from deferring ... what risks and costs are you running with the system?' Australian Water Association chief executive Corinne Cheeseman said the main Sydney Water accountabilities that IPART's decision considers are 'to deliver clean and safe drinking water, but also to maintain our sewer system so we can protect the environment'. 'Eighty per cent of our drinking water supply comes through Prospect Water Filtration Plant,' she said. 'It's a very good water filtration plant, but we've had significant flood events in the last three years.' Flooding can overwhelm the plant's capacity and lead to increased 'turbidity' or cloudiness, as debris and, recently, bushfire ash are washed into the water supply. In its price proposal, Sydney Water proposed upgrading pre-treatment at Prospect for $697 million. IPART's draft determination proposed deferring this program, noting that Prospect had survived historical adverse events without boil-water notices. 'Weather variation creates uncertainties that may challenge Sydney Water's ability to survive sequential adverse weather events as climate change advances,' the report conceded. Cheeseman said sewage spills from clogged pipes, resulting in environmental and drinking water contamination, could become common, especially given IPART's draft proposal slashed Sydney Water's plans to renew high-risk areas of the network by between $1 billion and $1.9 billion, or between 18 and 34 per cent. Ian Wright, a professor of environmental science at Western Sydney University who worked for Sydney Water between 1989 and 2006, said more frequent flooding and drought cycles brought on by climate change justified the utility's proposal to expand the use of the once-controversial Sydney Desalination Plant drinking water within its network. The plant, which cost the state government $1.9 billion to build before it was leased privately in 2012, can supply up to 15 per cent of Sydney's drinking water, but contributed 6.7 per cent of Sydney Water's drinking water in 2023-24, according to the utility's most recent annual report. IPART's draft decision deferred most of the involved expenditure to the next price proposal, leaving Sydney's drinking water reliant for now on the ageing Warragamba Dam, which spilled this month, but was at 43.9 per cent capacity as recently as 2019. 'We've gone into a flooding cycle, but we will go back into a dry cycle ... Our last big addition to the water supply was Warragamba ... It was completed in 1960.' Who should bear the cost? Under Sydney Water's model, customers cover most capital expenditure on renewal and growth of infrastructure. Most of the experts interviewed for this article agreed water bills had been too low for too long. Simon Fane, a UTS associate professor who advises water utilities and governments nationwide, characterised the problem as 'multiple layers of people not wanting to put up bills'. 'For the last few years, the water industry has known that things were going to get more expensive, but haven't really been flagging enough.' There was a real increase of only 18 per cent in the median typical residential bill in NSW in the 20 years to 2024. WSAA executive director Adam Lovell said customers who can pay, 'should pay, but those customers who can't, there are well-established and well-proposed programs to help them into the future'. In 2024-25, the government spent $130 million on concessions for pensioners and $17 million on exempt non-profit organisations serviced by Sydney Water, and $2 million on other hardship programs across Sydney Water and Hunter Water. Loading There are alternative methods of generating funds. Wilson said in the case of new infrastructure, funding could come from the developers who benefit, while funding for both growth and renewal could come directly from the government. The latter was an idea echoed by NSW opposition water spokeswoman Steph Cooke. Cooke criticised price increases for consumers, saying IPART's 'serious rebuke of Sydney Water's proposal' had spared them an 18 per cent rise, but 'left a $6 billion hole in Sydney Water's capital works program'. 'If Labor won't allow Sydney Water to manage its business properly then it needs to invest more from the state budget to support enabling infrastructure, like water, for new homes,' she said. Macquarie University's Davies had a more radical suggestion: to tax some of the value developers receive from rezoning, which would result in multimillion-dollar windfalls. 'Essentially, what we do in that [current] process is we privatise the profit,' he said. 'Multiple decades, not political cycles' With the Minns minority government looking to pick up seats at the 2027 election, the chance of Labor or the Coalition campaigning on higher water bills is small. Try telling residents without wastewater connections in Wollondilly, many of whom would not have been connected under Sydney Water's proposed works, to pay higher bills, Gould said. Loading But many, including Davies, raised concerns about the premier's proactive role in influencing IPART's decision, resulting in cheaper bills now, but risking generational inequity later. 'I see IPART making decisions that then have a political overlay of government … four-year horizons … where you might have a large utility that will think in multiple decades, not political cycles,' he said. Asked about the premier's influence, an IPART spokesperson said its draft decision recognised Sydney Water's need to increase revenue to deliver safe water and infrastructure to keep up with growth, but that 'customers should pay only what Sydney Water requires to efficiently deliver these services'. Fane is frank about Minns' letter: 'That might get us through the next election, but it won't get us through the next drought.'
The Age
29 minutes ago
- The Age
Pay more for your water or boil it? The unpalatable choice behind Sydney's water woes
In March 2021, as 'one-in-100-year' floods across Sydney's eastern seaboard followed hard on bushfires and drought, Sydney Water and the then-Coalition government were preparing for the worst: telling some of the 5 million users to boil their drinking water to ensure its safety. 'This is something you'd only expect in the Third World,' said one source, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail private deliberations. The narrowly avoided boil water notice, exceedingly rare for a state capital, would have been the first in Sydney since 1998, when a citywide warning was issued after pathogens that can cause nausea and severe diarrhoea were detected in supply from Macquarie Street to Palm Beach. Now, Sydney Water has begun briefing stakeholders that a draft decision by pricing regulator IPART, slashing the state-owned utility's planned capital expenditure by 35 per cent, or $5.9 billion, again raises the risk of Sydneysiders having to boil water during extreme rainfall events. The problem: the state-owned corporation funds infrastructure upgrades through raising water bills, an unpalatable choice for any government, and Sydney Water was proposing a 50 per cent increase over five years. NSW Premier Chris Minns wrote to IPART in August urging it to make 'cost-of-living impacts' a first-order consideration. Released in May, IPART's draft determination proposed limiting household bill rises to 23 per cent. The final decision is expected in September, with increases taking effect on October 1. Experts and peak bodies say the fallout will be twofold: reduced expenditure will limit the renewal of ageing pipes, plants and sewers with potentially disastrous consequences, and investment in new infrastructure will not be enough to support NSW's commitment to build 263,000 homes across Sydney Water's network by 2029. The question for bill payers is this: should we get used to paying more for water to secure its supply now, or risk passing on the cost, and possible catastrophe, to future customers? And in a housing crisis, Sydney Water and its stakeholders are asking why the government and IPART have pulled the handbrake on critical infrastructure for the construction of homes. Support for housing growth Housing supply is at the centre of Sydney Water's price proposal – the areas it covers will contribute most of the state government's commitments under the National Housing Accord. Before this year's budget, NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey enthused that the next 10 years would be about delivering the 'pipes and poles' for much-needed housing, saying the government's 'rule of thumb' was that anything former Labor premier Neville Wran built in the 1970s and '80s would be replaced. But the 2025-2026 budget did not deliver any significant funding to make up the expenditure reduction proposed by IPART's draft determination. Many of the experts interviewed for this article said the Minns government's housing targets were not achievable with this reduced capital. Urban Taskforce chief executive Tom Forrest said IPART's proposal would deliver considerably less than 263,000, or even the 191,000 he considered realistic in the current market. 'You can't say we've got a housing supply crisis, and it's the biggest challenge that our government faces, and then say: 'Oh, but we're not going to fund Sydney Water, and we're not going to allow [it] to raise the money through rates,' ' Forrest said. Without adequate funding for infrastructure, building houses in growth areas would be irresponsible, said Stuart Khan, head of civil engineering at the University of Sydney. 'We definitely don't want to get into a situation where wastewater infrastructure lags behind housing infrastructure. We've seen that happen in parts of Sydney,' he said. Inner Sydney councils including Woollahra have already expressed concern about a possible strain on water infrastructure from new dwellings in their objections to the government's low- and mid-rise housing reforms. But LGAs such as Wollondilly on Sydney's south-western fringe are evidence of the problems that could eventuate if water infrastructure does not keep up with housing demand. The shire contains two areas rezoned in 2023 as growth areas, in the towns of Wilton and Appin. In Wilton, where the population of 5000 is expected to multiply elevenfold by 2040, 12,000 lots without wastewater connections were rezoned as residential, meaning newly built houses now have their sewage trucked out regularly. Wollondilly Shire Mayor Matt Gould said work to temporarily expand a nearby treatment plant would only be able to service three-quarters of the lots once complete. 'We're willing to do our fair share to address the housing crisis, but we have an infrastructure crisis that is preventing the capacity to ... deliver.' So what has given the state government and IPART the confidence that housing can be delivered without the infrastructure? Outdated housing forecasts, said Property Council NSW executive director Katie Stevenson, noting IPART's draft decision is based on the Greater Sydney Housing Supply forecast in 2023, which 'came well before the NSW government's major suite of housing reforms' and predicted 172,900 homes over the six years to 2029. But the modelling underpinning IPART's draft report takes a more conservative approach, estimating 120,000 additional homes will be built by 2029. Sydney Water based its pricing proposal on the government's updated commitment. Peter Davies, a professor of sustainability at Macquarie University, said the state government and IPART had rewarded this foresight by leaving the utility 'between a rock and a hard place'. A spokesperson for the Minns government rejected the 120,000 figure, saying an assessment by Infrastructure NSW had found housing from its transport-oriented development and low- and mid-rise rezoning could be accommodated 'without the need for major new water infrastructure investment'. 'Sydney Water has a responsibility to ensure that its water infrastructure pipeline does not hold up the delivery of new homes,' they said. Upgrading Sydney's ageing water infrastructure Sydney's water infrastructure is, by modern standards, ancient. The CBD's Bennelong Point Sewerage System became the first planned system to dispose of Sydney's sewage in 1857, one year before the construction of London's modern sewerage system. It still handles stormwater today. But Khan said most infrastructure went in 50 years ago. 'It's coming up towards end of life, or it's gradually going to reach end of life over the next 20 or 30 years,' he said. Stuart Wilson, deputy director of the Water Services Association of Australia said no one, including IPART and the state government, was denying the need to renew this infrastructure. 'It's an argument about in this three- to five-year period or the next three- to five-year period … For a relatively small benefit from deferring ... what risks and costs are you running with the system?' Australian Water Association chief executive Corinne Cheeseman said the main Sydney Water accountabilities that IPART's decision considers are 'to deliver clean and safe drinking water, but also to maintain our sewer system so we can protect the environment'. 'Eighty per cent of our drinking water supply comes through Prospect Water Filtration Plant,' she said. 'It's a very good water filtration plant, but we've had significant flood events in the last three years.' Flooding can overwhelm the plant's capacity and lead to increased 'turbidity' or cloudiness, as debris and, recently, bushfire ash are washed into the water supply. In its price proposal, Sydney Water proposed upgrading pre-treatment at Prospect for $697 million. IPART's draft determination proposed deferring this program, noting that Prospect had survived historical adverse events without boil-water notices. 'Weather variation creates uncertainties that may challenge Sydney Water's ability to survive sequential adverse weather events as climate change advances,' the report conceded. Cheeseman said sewage spills from clogged pipes, resulting in environmental and drinking water contamination, could become common, especially given IPART's draft proposal slashed Sydney Water's plans to renew high-risk areas of the network by between $1 billion and $1.9 billion, or between 18 and 34 per cent. Ian Wright, a professor of environmental science at Western Sydney University who worked for Sydney Water between 1989 and 2006, said more frequent flooding and drought cycles brought on by climate change justified the utility's proposal to expand the use of the once-controversial Sydney Desalination Plant drinking water within its network. The plant, which cost the state government $1.9 billion to build before it was leased privately in 2012, can supply up to 15 per cent of Sydney's drinking water, but contributed 6.7 per cent of Sydney Water's drinking water in 2023-24, according to the utility's most recent annual report. IPART's draft decision deferred most of the involved expenditure to the next price proposal, leaving Sydney's drinking water reliant for now on the ageing Warragamba Dam, which spilled this month, but was at 43.9 per cent capacity as recently as 2019. 'We've gone into a flooding cycle, but we will go back into a dry cycle ... Our last big addition to the water supply was Warragamba ... It was completed in 1960.' Who should bear the cost? Under Sydney Water's model, customers cover most capital expenditure on renewal and growth of infrastructure. Most of the experts interviewed for this article agreed water bills had been too low for too long. Simon Fane, a UTS associate professor who advises water utilities and governments nationwide, characterised the problem as 'multiple layers of people not wanting to put up bills'. 'For the last few years, the water industry has known that things were going to get more expensive, but haven't really been flagging enough.' There was a real increase of only 18 per cent in the median typical residential bill in NSW in the 20 years to 2024. WSAA executive director Adam Lovell said customers who can pay, 'should pay, but those customers who can't, there are well-established and well-proposed programs to help them into the future'. In 2024-25, the government spent $130 million on concessions for pensioners and $17 million on exempt non-profit organisations serviced by Sydney Water, and $2 million on other hardship programs across Sydney Water and Hunter Water. Loading There are alternative methods of generating funds. Wilson said in the case of new infrastructure, funding could come from the developers who benefit, while funding for both growth and renewal could come directly from the government. The latter was an idea echoed by NSW opposition water spokeswoman Steph Cooke. Cooke criticised price increases for consumers, saying IPART's 'serious rebuke of Sydney Water's proposal' had spared them an 18 per cent rise, but 'left a $6 billion hole in Sydney Water's capital works program'. 'If Labor won't allow Sydney Water to manage its business properly then it needs to invest more from the state budget to support enabling infrastructure, like water, for new homes,' she said. Macquarie University's Davies had a more radical suggestion: to tax some of the value developers receive from rezoning, which would result in multimillion-dollar windfalls. 'Essentially, what we do in that [current] process is we privatise the profit,' he said. 'Multiple decades, not political cycles' With the Minns minority government looking to pick up seats at the 2027 election, the chance of Labor or the Coalition campaigning on higher water bills is small. Try telling residents without wastewater connections in Wollondilly, many of whom would not have been connected under Sydney Water's proposed works, to pay higher bills, Gould said. Loading But many, including Davies, raised concerns about the premier's proactive role in influencing IPART's decision, resulting in cheaper bills now, but risking generational inequity later. 'I see IPART making decisions that then have a political overlay of government … four-year horizons … where you might have a large utility that will think in multiple decades, not political cycles,' he said. Asked about the premier's influence, an IPART spokesperson said its draft decision recognised Sydney Water's need to increase revenue to deliver safe water and infrastructure to keep up with growth, but that 'customers should pay only what Sydney Water requires to efficiently deliver these services'. Fane is frank about Minns' letter: 'That might get us through the next election, but it won't get us through the next drought.'
