Land lease payments – nice little sit-down earner

By ERWIN CHLANDA

 

An initiative by the Howard government in 2006 to stimulate commercial activity, private enterprise style, by Aboriginal people on their land has been turned into yet another source of sit-down money.

 

At right: The Central Desert Shire office in Yuendumu: lease payments for government assets in the bush, a new form of sit-down money. Where are the leases for businesses and private homes?

 

The Aboriginal Affairs Minister at the time, Mal Brough, introduced an amendment to allow leases to be granted of otherwise “inalienable” Aboriginal freehold land, meaning it cannot be sold or – consequently – mortgaged.

 

The intention was that people could own their homes, and that businesses could be started, perhaps by joint venture partners with capital and experience from outside, with the venture having at least a limited security of tenure.

 

The Labor government that came to power in 2007 reduced the period from 99 to 40 years.

 

So far as we can ascertain, not a single lease has been issued on behalf of their Land Trusts clients by the Central Land Council (CLC) for the purpose of a privately owned business or home.

 

In response to my comment piece earlier this week, the CLC media spokesperson fired off a missive, claiming that the CLC had issued “486 leases since those amendments”.

 

We replied that our report was “about leases for land on which homes can be built for private, not communal, ownership, and for private enterprise businesses and agricultural enterprises in which people in the bush play a vital role and have individual ownership”. We asked: “Please provide the number of those leases.” No information has been forthcoming.

 

We have reported on the issue of land leases to governments several times, including a comprehensive report in February last year.

 

It seems the only ones to get leases, at least at present, are government services which provide important, expensive and disproportionally needed assistance to people in the bush. And now the taxpayer is burdened with another impost.

 

For example, the Central Desert Shire has applied for leases which will cost it about $180,000 a year, according to CEO Cathryn Hutton.

 

She says they are for all main occupied buildings, including council offices, depots, work yards, staff accommodation, community halls, child and aged care facilities.

 

Ms Hutton says there are 20 to 30 leases in small communities and 50 to 60 in bigger ones.

 

The shire is using the same leasing model as the NT Government. (A lands department source says its leases are in preparation.) Another model is being developed for community living areas, says Ms Hutton.

 

The lessors are the Land Trusts and the CLC is acting on their behalf.

 

The annual payment is expected to be 6% of the properties’ unimproved capital value for residential land and 8% for commercial.

 

Ms Hutton says the CLC has not yet approved nor accepted the lease applications: “They are not signed off yet,” she says.

 

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Comments (starting with the most recent)

NB: If you want to reply to a previous comment, start your comment with this notation: @n where n is the number of the comment you want to reply to.
  1. Paul Parker
    Posted November 15, 2013 at 12:49 pm

    Reported today by Gail Liston on ABC News: “Cash shortfall makes waves at Red Centre pools.”
    Reported previously were MacDonnell Shire comments the pools at Santa Teresa, Aeryonga and Kintore needed about $500,000 for their operating costs.
    IF corporate Land Trusts owners, with their CLC agents, have NOT yet issued reasonable leases, is it time to return responsibility and maintenance of the pools to their owners the corporate Land Trusts?

    View Comment
  2. Cameleer
    Posted August 30, 2013 at 7:11 pm

    Paul, what are the developments that could be started in remote communities like Papunya and Kintore that would actually engage Aboriginal residents, not just as sit down partners but active workers?

    View Comment
  3. Paul Parker
    Posted August 30, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Warned no-one would leave Papunya to move to Kintore.
    After we moved Commonwealth conducted a review to see if we were really there.
    For most communities, a range of developments remain possible.
    Few developments attempted because reasonable leases not available for those prepared to try.
    Capital values for land required for value comparisons, CLC and government hide these figures to prevent discussion.
    Values of government leases will provide indicators for commercial and other interests; BTW may cause outrage about wastage.

    View Comment
  4. Cameleer
    Posted August 29, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    I would think that the reason the CLC can’t provide you with figures on leases for private homes, private enterprise businesses and agricultural enterprises is because there has been few or no requests for such leases.
    Communal home ownership very much suits Aboriginal lives, in particular the need to move houses after a death.
    The only possibly viable business in most remote communities is running a store but why would Aboriginal people who generally run the community store and get profits from it allow competition.
    As for agricultural enterprise, there are not many possibilities given remoteness and harsh climatic conditions.
    And even if agricultural leases were established this would only generate more sit down money, look at the Ali Curung melon farm as an example, not a single resident of Ali Curung works on it.

    View Comment
  5. Paul Parker
    Posted August 29, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    Public certainly need to learn unimproved capital values of land in each community.
    Will shire councils be able to rate-charge these lease-holders ?
    We need specified and clear any variations to conventional rights which might exist on these blocks.
    Will a 40 year lease on a block in a community (eg Yuendumu) cost more than perpetual ownership of a block in Alice Springs?
    Until such information is clear, with acceptable reasonable guidelines, is unreasonable to expect investment, only exception further wastage by politicians of public monies.

    View Comment

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*