Debate resumed from 30 October 2008.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.28 p.m.]: As I said previously, when a council or other authority makes a decision that results in a windfall gain, such as a rezoning or development consent decision, a developer profits by virtue of that rezoning or development consent. Why should the community not also benefit from a decision of a consent authority? At a meeting the New South Wales Property Council expressed to me the fear that increasing levies will make it more difficult to build in New South Wales. I said at the time and I say now that this bill is drafted in such a way as to leave councils free to set levies at a level the industry can live with. However, we agree with the New South Wales Property Council that consideration of intergenerational equity requires the Government to play a part in funding new infrastructure.

Some developers believe that they do not have any obligation to society at all. Aaron Gadiel of the Urban Task Force, for example, had a somewhat hysterical reaction to the bill, branding an affordable housing levy as "communism incarnate". If we extend that logic, the New South Wales Government is already practising it. According to that logic, taxation—which is, after all, socialisation of private wealth into public assets such as schools, hospitals and the like—therefore is also communism. The argument is infantile.

We do have obligations—to the elderly and to the workers we rely on in times of emergency and for public services. The property industry looks at everything through the prism of self-interest. We Greens look at it from another perspective—asking what we can do to create healthy mixed communities and cities. Building will not stop because of this levy. That has not happened at all the places where inclusionary zoning now operates. Earlier this year housing was at its lowest level of affordability ever. Rents are rising and vacancy rates are tight. However, it is misguided to target the First Home Owners Grant at new housing only. The purchase of existing housing does nothing to increase housing supply and the grant merely serves to increase the purchase price of such housing. Social housing is not keeping pace with the increase in population, and its availability is restricted to fewer than 5 per cent of the population. For example, low-wage workers are not eligible for rent assistance, public housing or Rentstart.

In conclusion, it is completely within the State Government's power to enact inclusionary zoning. There is no plausible reason for the Government to oppose this bill since the Government already allows limited mandatory inclusionary zoning in New South Wales. The Government already supports inclusionary zoning in principle. It is time to put it into practice throughout the State. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch and set down as an order of the day for a future day.