Crown Land Management (Section 78B Leases) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2019.)

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:07): I am the person who will be leading the debate on this side, the lead speaker, and I also inform the chamber that we will be opposing this bill. I will give some brief explanations on that: I would be interested in hearing more between the houses, particularly as a request I made for maps of where each of the shacks is located, and also a list of the leases and when they were first made, have not yet arrived in my office. I do not mean to criticise the minister's office. I know that they are extremely busy with another matter that I am also busy with, and probably many other things, but I am still looking forward to receiving that information perhaps between the houses.

I will say, though, that my objection to this piece of legislation comes primarily from a point of principle and one that the Labor Party has long held. In fact, I believe this bill is seeking to overturn a piece of legislation that was put in by the Labor Party when in government in 2009. If we think back over the history of shacks in South Australia, essentially these were properties that for a variety of reasons and mechanisms were built in places where we would not currently allow dwellings to be built. They are alongside watercourses such as the Glenelg River and the Lower Lakes, substantially along the coastline and in national parks.

It is my abiding regret that the government's proposal to allow the change to the lease conditions for shacks in national parks is not subject to legislation. This is something to which I may turn my mind, but at present it is able to be done simply by a decision od the government and an amendment to the management plan of each of the individual national parks.

I say that because, while I think that the location of all the shacks currently still under lease mean that they ought not be altered in their lease conditions, I find it particularly egregious that people would be able to have private dwellings that they would be able to sell or be able to will to allow inheritance by other people in our national parks. That is not consistent with our current and contemporary understanding of national parks and what they are for, and I would oppose that if I could; however, it is not in this bill.

What is in this bill is addressing the nearly 300 shacks, I think, that are on coast protection land or otherwise on Crown land that are the site of dwellings that, as I say, would not otherwise be given approval. When the Liberal Party was last in government—I guess some 17 or 18 years ago now—at the end of their period, at some point during their last government, they made a decision that they would largely allow the freeholding or at least the change in the conditions of leasing shacks.

That was done as a large exercise by the environment department (whatever its name was at the time; it might have been the department of environment and heritage (DEH)), and that process looked at every single shack that was under lease in South Australia. I probably do not need to tell the chamber, given that it would have been in the second reading explanation, but just to be clear, the arrangement that was made with people who had built shacks was that they would be able to have them as long as the last person on a lease that was devised was alive, and when that last person died they would be resumed by the state government.

In Victoria, that has happened significantly. A large number of shacks have been taken over by the government and, in fact, destroyed and the land has been returned to the coast land or the Crown land along the watercourses. However, in this case, back when the previous Liberal government was in office, the decision was that they would all be looked at to see whether either they could be altered so that the property could be allowed to be transferred to another leaseholder—i.e., largely through inheritance or gift—or the property could be made freehold and therefore owned and able to be sold.

All but these shacks were agreed to in that process under the previous Liberal government. All but these 300-odd shacks had their legal status changed. There was a reason that these were not. The reason was that none of them were either in a location or in a state, or both, to be justified as continuing to be dwellings past the term of the legal lease that had been given to the people who were leasing them. That was how it was left when the Liberals last went out of office for these 300-odd shacks.

Those in national parks, by virtue of being in national parks, those along the Glenelg River, around the Lower Lakes and along the coastline, were not suitable because their location was environmentally sensitive, because the access for the public was deemed to be more important (even by the previous Liberal government) or because the wastewater treatment, road access, coast erosion protection and other criteria were not satisfied.

This government has come in with an election commitment to have another look at those remaining shacks. What they are proposing to do is to change the protection that is given to the public rights to those pieces of land that currently have shacks on them, that are leased. They propose to change that protection that was put in by the Labor government so that they can go through an administrative process to determine again whether any of those shacks, or all of those shacks, are able to be made freehold or to allow people to transfer the lease.

I understand from the briefing that I had that that process will include matters such as wastewater treatment. That is pretty good. It is important that we do not have dwellings that are putting sewage out into rivers, oceans or lakes. They will also look at the question of access by road and the question of whether the owner has done coast protection works—basically whether the dwelling has been brought up to standard and whether the dwelling is able to be defended in its own right by the works the owner has done to any coastal erosion processes and others.

Of course, we must bear in in mind that we are already at 1º of warming for climate change and show no signs of slowing the increase in emissions, and therefore coast protection will increasingly be a feature of discussions that, whichever party is in, governments at a local, state and federal level will be having. For South Australia that is particularly difficult, given we have a very long coastline and a relatively low population. It is going to be expensive.

From the briefing as I understood it—and I am very happy to hear any further detail through the close of the second reading—the argument is that all those issues are going to be dealt with through an administrative process and that these shacks will need to be at a certain standard in order to be allowed to go through this process.

What is not addressed is the question of the principle that these shacks are dwellings where no-one would otherwise be able to build a dwelling, and in that sense they are alienating what is otherwise land that South Australians expect to have public access to. The reason you are not supposed to build on the coastal strip is that the coastal strip belongs to the people. That principle, of course, would not be addressed through this process.

I think there is a question of the mitigation of risk, particularly where a number of shacks are together. If the coastal erosion processes become so significant in the face of climate change, could there be a pressure through insurance companies, political pressure or through the residual obligations of government that they are not able to be transferred to private owners, that public funds would ultimately be used to protect private land that ought not be private but in fact ought to be resumed by the public?

I will have a number of questions when we go into the committee stage on this bill about how the money works. What has been paid by people for these properties, some of them incredibly well located? What would be paid in order to make them freehold? Should they be sold? Does that money remain only in private hands, or is there an expectation that the public would be compensated for the loss in perpetuity of what ought to be public land? There are a number of questions associated with the way in which the money is addressed.

As I understand it from the briefing, when this went to public consultation the only submissions that were received were from environmentalists who were concerned about this. That said, the only submissions environmentalists put in were that they did not think that this was a good idea. It is one of those conundrums for a minister for environment: the minister is often asked to do things by virtue of holding Crown land, as part of the policy but not the legislation by virtue of being responsible for national parks, that are not in fact in the interests of the environment. This, I believe, is one of them.

I do not believe that this is in the interests of the environment. It appears that that was the feedback in the submissions from people concerned with the environment. I am interested to know whether, at any point in the chain of finances that are associated with shacks, there is any benefit for the environment in any of the changing of hands, of money or of property that is being proposed.

With that, I think I have sketched out the concerns. It is a principled concern, but I also have numerous questions about process, about finances, about risk management and risk management into the future. At the heart, I have concerns about our environment, which any Minister for the Environment is the custodian of and given the primary responsibility for within any government, and whether this in fact conforms to that responsibility or is essentially about taking what is public land and making it available to a fortunate few who at present have a lease that lasts until the death of the last person on that lease. I look forward to going into committee and having an opportunity to ask more questions about that.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (12:20): I rise to wholeheartedly support the Crown Land Management (Section 78B Leases) Amendment Bill. I travelled down to Innes National Park, which I realise will not necessarily be covered by the bill, to meet with the chair of the shack owners association, Brenton Chivell, to discuss with him his desire to see him and his fellow shack owners achieve ownership of their shacks and the shacks they have held in their families for some years. This is an important first step in that direction.

I am pleased to contribute to the bill, which pleasingly fulfils another pre-election commitment made by the Marshall Liberal government to create new opportunities for families with shacks on Crown leases on Crown lands to retain their shacks in exchange for upgrading them to meet contemporary safety, amenity and environmental standards. It is noted, of course, that the Crown Land Management (Section 78B Leases) Amendment Bill impacts only upon leases on Crown land. In my electorate of Narungga, there are seven around Marion Bay, six at Port Clinton, three at Dowcer Bluff, one at Foul Bay, one at Hardwicke Bay, one at James Well, two at Port Moorowie, one at Pine Point, one at Point Souttar and one at Sultana Point.

There is one at Pudden Rocks off North Beach near Wallaroo—I have never been to Pudden Rocks. There is also one at Webling Bay in the Barunga West council area, six near Port Broughton and 30 at Fisherman Bay, and what a wonderful community Fisherman Bay is. Finally, of course, in the Adelaide Plains council area there is one at Port Parham and two at Middle Beach.

Pleasingly, for these lessees and their connected families who have retained shacks for generations, the bill creates some certainty after many, many years of uncertainty. Knowing their shack under life tenure lease would face demolition upon the death of the last named lessee and as such providing no incentive to maintain or invest in them, understandably left many to fall into a state of disrepair.

The Marshall Liberal government sees the benefits that these shacks bring for holiday communities and for environmental wellbeing and tourism value, so I welcome the announcement made straight after the 2018 election by the Minister for Environment and Water, the Hon. David Speirs, placing a moratorium on the practice of automatically terminating leases upon the death of the last named lessee and placing all pending revaluations of shack sites on hold to allow valuable time to explore the issue of freeholding shacks on Crown lands and look at renewable tenure options for shacks in national parks.

The amendment bill before us importantly removes the transitional provision, the legal barrier contained in the existing Crown Land Management Act that prevents the holder of a section 78B lease from being granted a further interest at the site, such as better tenure or freehold or term tenure. It sets out a process that provides options for existing leases that lessees currently do not have where they can seek surrender of their existing lease in return for purchasing the land at market value or entering into a term Crown lease. The lessee may seek this for themselves or nominate another person to purchase or lease the Crown land. It is important to note that this amendment bill does not guarantee a lessee will be granted improved tenure, but it creates a pathway that will allow them to be considered for better tenure.

At this point, I wish to stress that the bill is step 1 in this welcome reform process. The amendment bill does not deal with shack leases within national parks, such as Innes National Park in the Narungga electorate, of which there are 20 shacks whose lessees are watching this debate today with great interest and who have publicly and loudly welcomed the commencement of any legislative reform that will stop the necessity to demolish these generational family shacks.

Dealing with shacks within national parks requires a separate process by the department, which the Marshall Liberal government has committed to and which will follow the passage of the bill before us today. Of course, this is required to amend the relevant park management plans, as outlined in section 38 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, before further reform can commence. This process involves a regulated minimum three-month public consultation period, yet to commence, and consideration by several parties, including the Parks and Wilderness Council, and negotiation, in the case of Innes, with the Narungga traditional owners as future co-managers of the park.

With a co-management agreement in place with the Narungga Nation Aboriginal Corporation, from there the new park management plan can proceed. With the drafting and consultation process, I expect it will take another 12 months of work, but still the progress of this first step amendment bill before the house today has been welcomed by all lessees of shacks on Crown land and in national parks, even though lessees on the latter will still need to be patient for just that little bit longer.

Shack owners in Innes National Park have been fighting for change for some four years or more now, with the most well-known case being the fight to save a family shack at Shell Beach in Innes National Park, known as Sloggs Motel, which in 2015 became the first of the Innes shacks on the chopping block to be hit with forced removal.

Under current legislation and the previous Labor government, despite lobbying from the South Australian Shack Owners Association, family member representatives, such as Mick Reynolds, who became the spokesperson for a large extended group of family and friends of the late Philip Pavy, the last leaseholder of the Sloggs Motel, who died in 2014, this shack faced enforced demolition by 30 June 2015.

There was a large and loud public outcry about this decision, and from more than just the family of the lessees. A change.org petition was signed by 1,172 people, and similar support came from social media platforms. The online petition preamble stated:

We the undersigned would like to ask that Members of the Parliament of South Australia, move to save the Private Shacks in Innes National Park as historically important places to this region.

And, I further quote:

…support to the call 'Save Slogs Motel', allow this family, and future generations of, to preserve this important icon of this state and region. So that future generations may enjoy the heritage, and generations to come can see the humble beginnings of tourism, in a place which has since been declared as a national park.

It was noted that the area now known as Innes National Park was 'gifted to the state government by the Innes family, who would never have intended for shacks for ever have been demolished'. As was alluded to, Innes National Park, which is about 9,000 hectares in size, was first claimed in 1970. Its name arises from the Innes family, who gifted the park to the government. It is my understanding that the Innes family gifted the park with the proviso that the village of Inneston, which retains a number of heritage buildings, would always be allowed to remain, so one can take that to mean that the shacks were intended to remain there as well.

Mr William Innes discovered gypsum in the area in the early 1900s, which has been mined and exported since. Online response comments of the day advocated:

Slogs Motel is not a Burden on any natural resource, nor is it overly intrusive to the environment with native vegetation extending to and beyond the edges of the existing footprint of this dwelling.

Others lamented the 'appalling treatment of existing lessees who pay exorbitant fees and look after such places'. With shack lessees paying thousands a year in annual lease fees and council rates, the latter for scant services in return—reportedly, these rates were calculated on valuations of freehold sites in nearby towns—it is not surprising that lessees have long been calling for reform. Coming back to the online petition, it was all to no avail, however, as legislative requirements are just that, and the infamous Sloggs Motel ultimately lost its fight, being demolished in 2016 after a long fight to save it.

To further demonstrate the depth of connection and feeling by local people on this issue, particularly from southern Yorke Peninsula, and the extent of effort to save it from the bulldozer, I now read from the local media of the day on 11 March 2015:

A family shack at Shell Beach is expected to be the first of Innes National Park's iconic retreats to be demolished.

For 63 years family and friends of the late Philip Pavy have spent holidays at the shack, known as Sloggs Motel.

Mr Pavey died late last year, and the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources is now bound to enforce its demolition under the life tenure shack lease agreement he signed in 2002.

However, Mick Reynolds is working to save the building on behalf of the family and is not giving up yet.

Mr Reynolds said he will continue to exhaust every avenue of appeal.

He goes on to say:

'I am doing this on behalf of Phillip's sister, although as part of an extended family group I have been going down to the shack regularly for 46 years…

Originally when owner and builder John Sloggs passed away in the late 1980s the shack was left to his friends at Port Victoria, about half a dozen lads including Phillip and my father.

Unfortunately, they were later told only one person could be on the lease, and that's when Phillip became the leaseholder.

'The shack is not a permanent place of residence, nor a mansion worth a million dollars, it's an iron dwelling with an old wood floor and no electricity.

If in the end we were forced to remove the shack the dune it sits on would become a dust bowl very quickly doing more damage to the environment than we've ever done.'

An important point indeed, as we progress the bill before us today. The media article continues:

Sloggs Motel is expected to be the first of the Crown-lease shacks to go within Innes, including at Pondalowie, Dolphin Beach and Inneston.

Despite an ongoing fight, currently shacks must be pulled down by their owners' estates at considerable expense once the last person on each property's lease dies.

If only they had had the Marshall Liberal government moratorium on the automatic termination of the shack leases in place, as we do now, that allows for the shack review process that is underway and has, since April last year, provided families with confidence that they can continue to at least occupy the shack in the event of the death of the last lessee until such time as they are assessed for the suitability for longer tenure.

If such a review had been underway under the previous government, the local iconic Sloggs Motel may well still be standing to be enjoyed by future generations of locals and visitors. At the time, the valid argument from the Innes Shack Owners Association, who joined the fight and worked with the department to explore options for the future to secure tenure for all shacks within Innes, was that:

The Shell Beach shack in particular has provided benefit to our local community over the years by allowing many local schools and community groups to utilise the shack.

We hope these aspects are also able to be taken into consideration by [the department] when assessing the value of these buildings to the local area.

That was stated by local champion for the cause Brenton Chivell at the time back in 2015. I must note, Brenton is still today the chairperson of Innes Shack Owners Association. I have met with him a number of times since being elected and prior to being elected, and I know he is following the passage of this bill very carefully and attentively today. Mr Chivell has publicly welcomed the commitment by those on this side of the house to provide a legislative pathway to retaining shacks in recognition of the roles they can provide in relation to long-term economic and tourism benefits—in this case, for the YP region—and for the environmental benefits.

When the moratorium on further demolition of shacks was announced in April 2018, local lessees described it as 'exciting times for shack owners in South Australia at the moment'. A local lessee also stated:

After years of being treated like second class citizens by the previous Labor Government, it's great to see our new government standing by its promises to embrace the shacks community.

What a wonderful quote that is about the support for this bill before us today. Whilst additional amendments are required to individual park management plans to facilitate the retention of shacks located in national parks, this separate process by the department is being advanced and will take due course while the moratorium on demolishing shacks is being maintained. Innes National Park lessees welcome the continued development of new policy and implementation that provides certainty of tenure and valuations of shack sites going forward.

I welcome the bill before us today and gladly support it. It provides certainty of tenure for families by expanding the eligibility to maintain a lease in return for improving shacks to meet contemporary safety, amenity and environmental standards. More freeholding of shacks located on Crown land will follow as will renewable tenure options for shacks located within national parks. Fair valuation advice for the sale of shack sites will come as a result, as will strengthened links between local ranges, Friends of Parks groups and shack owners.

This policy work has been technically complex and has involved consultation with shack owners associations, traditional owners, the Conservation Council and Friends of Parks groups, as well as individuals and families, dealing with a broad range of regulatory agencies and government departments, including the Environment Protection Authority, the Coast Protection Board, DPTI and SA Health, as well as local councils. I heartily commend all involved in the extensive work undertaken. With 247 shacks in South Australia presently affected by section 78B leases, this work is of vital interest to many.

I stress that the amendment bill before us does not guarantee the lessee will be granted improved tenure, but it creates an important pathway to at least allow them to be considered for better tenure, be it for a longer lease or to freehold. It is stressed that any surrender of a life tenure lease will be on terms determined by the minister, that a demonstrated ability to meet the identified contemporary safety standards will determine a successful surrender, and that relevant issues at each site will differ depending on circumstances. It is also important to note that under this amendment bill shack lessees will not be obliged to upgrade their shacks as a result of this process. Rather, they will elect either to participate or to remain on their current section 78B lease.

In summary, whilst it is too late for some families who unsuccessfully petitioned the former Labor government to stop shacks demolition, I am pleased that those who have not been able to secure tenure under the previous government have had respite since April last year from worrying about the uncertainty of when their long-held family shack may have to go. The bill that is before us formally commences the pathway that will provide much-needed certainty to current shack lessees that they have not had previously.

These people, in their 70s, 80s and 90s and under considerable anxiety, will get the opportunity to hand their tenure on to family members. A clear process will be provided by this bill to enable the ongoing tenure of shacks on Crown land and in due course, hopefully, in national parks. I thus commend the Crown Land Management (Section 78B Leases) Amendment Bill to the house and look forward to its speedy passage.