LAND TENURE

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:24): I rise today to speak on the issue of land tenure; that is, the way by which land is held and owned in this state. There seems to be a dedicated effort to undermine land acquisition in this state by the current government. A number of types of land tenure exist in South Australia. Freehold title exists over a large area of the state, but there are also a number of leasehold type arrangements. There are perpetual leases, pastoral leases, war service leases, miscellaneous leases, and I am sure there are some other types of lease arrangements as well.

Generally, leasehold properties can be bought and sold, as can freehold. Freehold title is highly sought after. On the other hand, some leaseholders, in the past, have had the opportunity to gain freehold title to their properties. For some that opportunity no longer exists. I suggest that those who took the opportunity when it was presented were indeed wise because for some that opportunity no longer exists.

One would have thought that freehold title gave some sort of security, but it seems not. The example I give is that landowners in my electorate with freehold coastal property—generally farmland—have seen that rezoned (with no consultation) into a so-called coastal conservation zone. What that means is that those landowners who have been freehold title owners for that property—often for many years and sometimes up to 100 years—no longer have the right to develop that property. Any plans they might have had are no longer an option for them.

An obvious example is that many people I have spoken to have had in mind to develop their properties in lieu of superannuation. That opportunity has been taken away from them with the stroke of a pen. Most recently I have heard examples of miscellaneous leases, upon expiry, being reissued as licences—a licence to occupy the land for five years—to manage the land but not to improve it, to own as a licence but with the very real possibility that that licence will be withdrawn once the licence expires. In fact, that has been indicated to them.

What does this mean for landowners? Most importantly, landowners are having their equity reduced; the value of their asset is reduced, as I said, by the stroke of a pen in an office far away—it is wrong. The intent appears to be that, upon the expiry of these licences, the government is looking to gain control of this land and to lock this country away. My point is this: with 22 per cent of the state already locked up, the government seems intent on increasing this percentage with no end in sight. To what end? What do we gain? This is socialism.

Producers take their responsibilities very seriously. I know they feel the responsibility to feed the world and they understand their role as land managers, but they also need to stay in business. I am one who believes the environment does need managing. In fact, we as a species have reached the stage where we can no longer expect not to manage our environment. I firmly believe that the terrestrial landscape is more sustainable the more productive it is. When this land is locked up it will not be well managed; the gate will be shut. Despite its best intentions, DENR simply does not have the resources to take on any more land management.

Mr Venning: Weeds, vermin!

Mr TRELOAR: The member for Schubert quite rightly mentions weeds and vermin. The gate will be shut and the place will be overrun with weeds and vermin—rabbits, wombats, kangaroos and horehound.

If the government's intention is to turn this state into one giant theme park then it is doing a good job! Once again, unfortunately, we have an arrogant and out-of-touch government making decisions without consultation and locking up country without any regard for the views of the landowners and for no gain whatsoever.