Page 2582 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That was the system. If that were still the system, then this argument about the community being entitled to betterment would hold good. This is a learned dissertation, and Mr Wood might listen to it. The fact is that today, whatever you call it, we have a system that is very close to freehold tenure.
Mr Moore: No.
MR KAINE: Listen to me. People have a lease and up front they pay a sum of money that is no different to what you would pay for a piece of freehold land in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne or anywhere else. Up to $100,000 is paid for a residential lease, let alone a commercial lease. Go and ask a few petrol station owners around this town how much they paid for their piece of ground. They paid millions. That sort of money having been paid up front, when a lease, particularly a residential lease, expires then, according to the law, that lease is extended without a single dollar, other than an administrative fee, changing hands.
For all practical purposes, when I go and buy a block of land today I pay up to $100,000 for it. In fact I could buy a block of land in Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne cheaper. I pay a very substantial sum up front. I get virtually leasehold in perpetuity, and in a practical sense that is no different in principle to freehold land. The Government has had its profit in the premium that has been paid up front. I am just putting forward an argument here, and I would be interested in the Minister's refutation of it - if he can refute it. Accepting that that is the reality, if I find that I can use my land for some different purpose I go through the whole process of lease variation, which I am obliged to do, and the Planning Authority and everybody agree that I can change the purpose and use the land for something else, why should I pay a new sum because I choose to use the land for something else? It does not necessarily follow.
If the Government wants to pander to this element of the community that says, "It is always publicly owned land", then let us do away with the hefty premium up front so that it is clearly only a lease and you do not have to pay a fortune to get the piece of land in the first place, and let us go back to a land rent system under which you satisfy the community interest by levying a land rent. If we want to go back to the 1920s and the 1930s and reintroduce that system, that is fine. I do not think we do, frankly. It was abandoned for good reasons, but when you abandon that truly leasehold system and you set in place a de facto freehold land system you cannot then claim the benefits of both worlds. The Government has to make up its mind what it wants and proceed down that route.
The Minister tells us that he will be making a statement in a month's time and then everybody will be fully informed. We will see. I hope that the Minister will approach this with an open mind. I hope that he has not made up his mind without hearing all the arguments. I would be disappointed if that were the case. I am interested in what is being done and I have been following the debate with great interest because, as the Minister has pointed out, there is a law about this at the moment. Some people seem to think the Minister can wave his wand and change the arrangements overnight. He cannot do that. The law has been in place for about three years now.
Mr Wood: Not quite overnight.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .