Border Mail letters: Border Mail readers have their say on the issues of the day

Bad move: The 35-year lease of the NSW Land Titles Registry, a reader says, would be a disservice to people across the state.

Bad move: The 35-year lease of the NSW Land Titles Registry, a reader says, would be a disservice to people across the state.

Titles office move wrong

Thank you for printing the article regarding the privatisation of the NSW Land Titles Registry (The Border Mail, March 4).

While I do appreciate your need to obtain both sides of any argument, the government’s stance on this issue is completely flawed.

Yes, it is not a sale – it's a 35-year lease. It's still handing the registry over to a private corporation. 

The treasurer's statement “....the technology it invests in to better serve the people of NSW” is just plain ridiculous.

Hello! We are talking about a private corporation here. They don't invest in serving the public. The only investing they do is in the interests increasing their profits. 

The current government run land titles registry is constantly evolving and investing in technology.

The changes lately have had a huge benefit to the public and are ongoing.

They are, however doing it at an appropriate pace.

They are consulting with the various experts (registered land surveyors, lawyers and conveyancers) to make sure it is done properly, and the land titles registry remains secure. 

A private corporation will fast track any change which will reduce its costs and increase its profits. Yes, the government will cap price increases for regulated services. What about GST? Not currently applicable. What about new fees they may introduce? What about increased delays in land title processing due to staff cuts? 

This will cause a huge cost to land developers which will need to be passed on the purchasers.

The government’s proposed safeguards for the integrity of the land title system are hopelessly inadequate, and do not take into account the profit-driven aims of a private corporation. 

NSW land titles are government guaranteed.

How can they guarantee a title they do not administer?

A similar privatisation move was dropped in England recently as it was not secure enough.

Privatising of land titles registers in parts of Canada have been fraught with problems. 

The NSW premier recently accused surveyors and lawyers of being self-serving and having a vested interest in their opposition to this privatisation.

This is utter nonsense, and the opposite is potentially true.

The privatisation of the land title registry could potentially bring more work to surveyors and lawyers – but we are still opposed because we know what that work would cost the community.

Our only vested interest is in the security of our beloved land titles system, which we helped create and maintain. 

The government is obviously hoping to get this through without community knowledge. 

If the NSW premier really believed in her own acceptance speech where she quoted housing affordability, she would drop this proposal immediately. 

Charles Fransen, registered land surveyor, NSW

Change your vote

I am continually astonished by the complaining of North East Victorians about the continuing problems with rail.

These electorate keep electing the same people as federal and state representatives, but expect a different result. This is insane.

The solution to these infrastructure problems is political, and using your vote more effectively. The North East electorate should stop whining and start thinking when they vote. Seriously, put up better representatives or shut up.

Julian Fidge, Wangaratta

Letter of the week

The winner of the letter of the week is Patricia O’Neill of Wodonga. You can collect your prize from the offices of The Border Mail at 1 McKoy Street in Wodonga. Send your letters to letters@bordermail.com.au.

Smartphone
Tablet - Narrow
Tablet - Wide
Desktop