responsible for land release and make land "more affordable". The whole scheme was an exercise in social planning. It was like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. The government created an artificial scarcity in land, so it could charge young home-buyers a small fortune for a block of land on which to build their dream home. Can anyone honestly say Australia is short of land? Fly over any Australian capital city, and you can see the empty acres with nothing on them except dried grass and a few sheep. What is stopping houses being built? Rules and regulations imposed by government social-planners. Bob Day estimates that builders could sell a good home and land package for as little as $130,000 - $100,000 for a new house and $30,000 for the land. But things would have to change. Take the provision of utilities and other services. Now, new home-buyers have to pay for all of these up-front. This is effectively a subsidy to other established home-owners. Why not allow the utilities companies to provide these services and recover them in their bills, which they would willingly do? Councils could provide basic services and recover the outlay in rates, paid off over a period of years, as still happens in some parts of Australia. Why not allow provincial cities to compete in land sales? The late Colin Clark, Australia's best-known contributor to economic theory internationally, advocated decentralisation of population across Australia. This would truly make land available for all who