Bills

Crown Land Management (Section 78B Leases) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (12:36): I rise in support of the Crown Land Management (Section 78B Leases) Amendment Bill 2019. This bill signifies the delivery of yet another Marshall Liberal government election commitment. For many families across the state, a shack is a great asset that has been handed down from generation to generation. It is a place to get away from everyday life, a place to relax and enjoy time with friends and family.

Life tenure leases for holiday accommodation purposes, otherwise known as shack leases on Crown land, were issued under section 78B of the Crown Lands Act 1929. The Crown Land Management Act 2009, which replaced the Crown Lands Act 1929, included a transitional provision that prevents the holder of the shack lease from being granted a further interest at the site, that is, either freehold or term tenure.

For too long, many shack lessees on Crown land have been in an unenviable and difficult situation, left with no incentive to improve their residences with the tenure of their lease on Crown land destined to expire. Under Labor, life tenure leases meant that upon the death of the last named lessee, the shack was required to be demolished and the land returned to the government. This has resulted in many lessees allowing their shacks to fall into disrepair, there being no incentive to maintain or invest in them.

Discussions with one of my constituents has provided a great example of the no-win situation shack owners were in: stuck with the status quo, knowing that they could not pass their shack on to family members or anyone else. The shack was built in a place that resembled a holiday outfit that was always secondary to the home and the lifestyle where those people may have come from, but it was meant to be a place of simplicity and enjoyment of the peace and quietness that a shack might provide from everyday life.

It might be drawing a long bow, but I will liken the shack to the idea of the links golf courses that have been built around the world, where one of the prerequisites is that the golf course has to be isolated. It has to be down a dirt road that no-one else really wants to use, it has to have a coastal view somewhere on the golf course—obviously water or sea or whatever it might be—and, most importantly, it has to remove the people who want to play that game of golf from their everyday society or how they live.

I think that sums up really well what these shacks meant to the people who lived in and operated them. It was where they could remove themselves from their day-to-day lives. This is where the golf courses do not come in—the shack gives a greater perception of this: it was a place to engage with friends and family. These shacks would have had a lot of history of good memories and camaraderie amongst owners, families and friends who used them.

They knew their tenure would end upon the death of the shack's lessee, which left these owners in a state of despair. These shacks were built very simply: they had no mod cons or benefits that we now enjoy in this age of technology. It brought people back down to a position where they could enjoy the environment and the outdoors. It was a place where you could get away, particularly if you were a city resident.

With these shacks being built very simply, I know that 40 or 50 years ago waste was dealt with just like it was anywhere. There may have been a long-drop toilet. There may not have been any running water. Certainly, there is no power in a lot of these shacks. The simplicity of existing in them would have been in the style of the early settlement period, but they were still enjoyed and appreciated by those who used them.

If the shacks were not quite up to scratch and you wanted to introduce modern technology, why would you do it if you knew they could not be passed on to anyone else and that they would be bulldozed upon the death of the lessee? What a quandary to have to work through. Through these amendments, the government is suggesting that all waste systems are upgraded as we give tenure of these shacks and that they are modernised so that they are not detrimental to the environment, as we now know they could possibly be.

As technology changes, we now have septic systems. It is easy to put in running water. We know we can install solar panels and wind turbines, which can maintain battery-type power and operate water pumps. Suddenly, these houses can have electricity, running water and a septic disposal-type system, and they can have these things in an environmentally friendly way. It is very pleasing that this government is joining the dots and providing an opportunity for this to take place if these shack owners wish to pursue that.

I have heard that the other side of the chamber is going to oppose these amendments and this bill. I question why they would do this. The shadow environment minister spoke about issues that give a long stretch to her concerns and the concerns of her party about the existence of these shacks. I heard that there was a detriment to where these shacks exist. The deputy leader talked about the environment, climate change, global warming and rising sea levels and how these shacks could suffer as a result of these changes and perhaps even add to the woes of these changes.

I have seen no evidence at all thus far, and if there is evidence that they are a problem hopefully this will be rectified. For example, if they wish to keep these shacks up and running, the government will stipulate that the waste disposal systems have to be upgraded. I have seen no evidence at all that these shacks have caused any hassles to the environment in a huge way. Yes, they might have an environmental footprint, as was claimed by the other side—they need roads, and the native vegetation around them has been cleared—but humans leave an environmental footprint wherever they have been.

This is one of the greatest dilemmas that we as a species are trying to deal with—that is, what sort of footprint on the world are we willing to accept as a human race? How are we going to coexist with this huge movement on global warming, our environmental footprint and these sorts of issues, and how are we going to solve them? We come back to this shack issue. How do we deal with it? We are just going to bulldoze and remove them. We are just not going to have them. We are going to turn the land back to native vegetation, as if we were never there. Well, let me tell you, we are here for a long time.

We are a very clever species and we will develop ways and methods to live within the environment and to do it well. For those who want to backtrack and undo what we have done, we as a species never generally do that. We do not undo ourselves. We do not go back to the horse and cart. We develop technologies and ways to work within the environment, and these shacks are exactly the same sort of thing. They can coexist in the environment.

In regard to the shacks, it has been pointed out to me that people are not allowed to build onto the shacks. They are not allowed to make them any bigger. Once they were a two-bedroom or two-room humpy. They could never build on a third room or put on a bathroom or a decent kitchen because they were not allowed to build on them. They were the rules for shacks. The shacks should at least be allowed to be upgraded so that the amenities are suitable for today's living. I would say that the incentive to invest further moneys—knowing that you could not have any more than the one generation living there—has absolutely been lost.

Shack owners are not the environmental Nazis of any particular region. By that I mean they do want to play their role in the environment. These shacks are found on the edge of rivers or on the edge of lakes—the Coorong, more importantly—and they want to blend in and be part of a solution for all that they can enjoy. I know that Coorong shack owners have been part of a weed management process, taking out the noxious weeds that have infiltrated our national parks, so they have been part of an answer. This is an engagement that we should absolutely hang our hat on and say, 'This is a great thing.'

I also know that Coorong shack owners were responsible for the Long Point jetty, which is a boat mooring facility. People can go out, put out their nets and catch a fish. Even professional fisherman can tie up against this jetty. It was constructed and maintained by the shack owners, or they at least assisted with this process. Of all things, the previous government was going to have that jetty pulled down. They were going to have it removed. Why? Because we do not want to have that sort of facility and infrastructure in a place where people are enjoying themselves. Why? Because it is a national park. Why would you want to do that in a national park? Because it is meant to be a national park in its full entirety. No human footprint is allowed to be seen here. The problem is that we do want to enjoy these national parks, and that brings me to the next point.

There is a roadhouse operator halfway between Meningie and Kingston. He believes he has suffered due to the national parks not engaging with tourists well enough, and that runs parallel with shack owners. Shack owners want to exist on the Coorong and do all the right things by the environment and the national park and help out with weeds and infrastructure.

To get the Coorong pumping so it can be a great tourist destination, the roadhouse operator wants signage. He wants good signage to say, 'Come in here and enjoy what the Coorong has to offer.' There are toilets and there are camping spots. You can camp in this area. There are roads that will take two-wheel drive vehicles and there are tracks that will take four-wheel drive vehicles. This is about engaging with all the people who want to enjoy national parks and the Coorong. I believe there is a great fit here for shack owners to be part of this process.

The delivery of our election commitment to create new opportunities for shack owners, providing the settings to enable the reinvigoration of these residences and the potential for enhanced visitation to these locations will realise benefits for both shack lessees and the broader local communities. The groundwork for this bill has included investigating the legal and technical requirements to facilitate and deliver on this election commitment. I am advised that consultation has included working with a range of agencies, including the EPA, DPTI, SA Health and the Coastal Protection Board.

A discussion paper was prepared and circulated in early July 2019 for community and stakeholder information and comment. This, together with extensive face-to-face consultation conducted by the Department for Environment and Water, provided an opportunity for shack lessees, local councils, traditional owners and Friends of Parks groups to consider the approach and understand the scope of the proposed amendments. I am advised that around 250 survey responses were received as a result of this consultation. Our election commitment identified that a lease will be required to upgrade their shack to meet current safety, amenity and environmental standards before they are assessed for improved tenure at the shack site.

I am advised that the assessment process relies on existing regulatory regimes and standards. These standards, of course, also include where development approval is required. This is an approach that I and many others appreciate will reduce duplication in processes and provide consistency in approval processes. The amendment removes a legal barrier that currently prevents shack lessees from applying for longer tenure. It also sets out a process where they may purchase or lease Crown land. This amendment will provide a pathway for leases that was not previously available. The bill also creates a provision that allows for the minister to require the removal or to remove unauthorised fixtures on Crown land.

In summing up, when I first came into this role as a new candidate one of my first calls was the Easter Coorong Shack Owners Association meeting at Meningie Bowling Club. There were a lot of distressed people in that room and they were very concerned about where they were and how they were progressing with the current government, which was the Labor government of 16 years. They had no longevity in their shack. They were really reaching out to the Liberal Party to help them out of this maze of issues involving something they had a real affinity for and love affair with.

The room had at least 100 to 150 people in it. Shack owners came all the way from the Glenelg River, near Nelson, and the Coorong and Lakes area. It was well attended and I got to meet a number of the faces, and I even got to meet people I did not realise had a shack who were friends and counterparts of mine from local communities, such as Lucindale and the like. It was quite staggering to see that these shacks are not just for a select few.

I have to say that they are certainly lucky to be in the situation to have a shack in some of these what I call pristine, beautiful places. One of the things they acknowledge is that they do not want to destroy these areas, and they do not want to cause any pollution or erosion. I think that our government can work well with this organisation and these shack owners to make sure that we cross all the t's and dot all the i's and that they have a good relationship.

One of the other important things is that we in the Liberal Party can hold our heads high. Hopefully, this progresses further to all the rest of the shack owners we could represent in this area. At the moment, it is just those on Crown lease or Crown land. It is giving some sort of ownership and belonging that we respect. What do I mean by 'respect'? Obviously, South Australia was settled 150 to 200 years ago when we plonked ourselves down here and tried to make a life for ourselves.

Shack owners, and those who developed these shacks, were very much of that early pioneer stage, when perhaps a beautiful site was found and they put up some sort of humpy or a house or fixture that represented an easy build and was not going to be encompassing for anyone to have to worry about too much. They could go and spend a couple of weeks or a couple of months there, and it has progressed further from that. We as a government are giving respect to that sort of pioneering development that South Australia and Australia developed. We are a young nation. We are a young state compared to the rest of the world. We cohabited this land by pioneering and these shacks are a result of that.

It gives me great pleasure that this bill signifies the delivery of yet another election commitment of our government. It reflects an appreciation of the value of shacks to our communities and the value they bring to the lifestyles of those who are fortunate enough to have them. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:54): I rise to make a contribution to the Crown Land Management (Section 78B Leases) Amendment Bill 2019. I give it my wholehearted support, as I represent an area that has at least two settlements that have shack leases that will be caught up and encompassed by this proposed legislation.

Shacks have been part of South Australian life for more than 100 years, providing rest and relaxation for families and friends. They have also provided a boost to our regional economies. The South Australian government is committed to creating new opportunities for owners to retain shacks on Crown land and in national parks, which will benefit shack owners, regional economies and the broader community.

As other members have indicated, shacks are scattered across the South Australian coastline, from the Glenelg River, at the very bottom of the South-East of South Australia, to Smoky Bay on the West Coast. In fact, they spread farther than that: there are also shacks all the way out to Fowlers Bay. Historically, local farming families have visited their closest beach, established shacks and spent their summer holidays there. Those shack precincts started out as places where these farming families would spend their summers, particularly after harvest and over the Christmas and new year period before the children went back to school, to rest and enjoy the spectacular natural environment.

I have a theory about how shacks were established at certain sites, and that is that the farming families on Eyre Peninsula and right around country South Australia identified their closest beach as the place to spend their summer holidays. With our coastline being much indented with gulfs and islands and with the South-East, there was plenty of opportunity for farming families to go to the beach, to go to the coast, and have their summer holidays. If you will bear with me, I will try to explain how my theory works.

In the Far West of the state, the farming families established shacks at Fowlers Bay. In the Wirrulla area, they went to Smoky Bay. The Poochera farmers went to Haslam. Those on central Eyre Peninsula at Wudinna, Minnipa and Warramboo invariably headed to Venus Bay, which was a hive of activity over that summer period. They went there to holiday but also to fish and catch up with all the people they also socialised with throughout the year.

The Lock families often went to Dutton Bay or Coffin Bay and the bottom end, too, went to Dutton Bay and Coffin Bay. Many of the Cummins farming families had shacks at Coffin Bay, and I will get to that a bit later because we were one of those families. Louth Bay was established just north of Port Lincoln. Incidentally, in the early days a lot of these destinations also served as drop-off and pick-up points for the ketches that serviced our coastal communities. The Ungarra farmers went into Tumby Bay or, if they were looking for a quieter time, off to Port Neill.

The Cleve farming families went to Arno Bay, and the Kimba farming families holidayed in Lucky Bay, which is just north of Cowell. There are over 100 shacks at Lucky Bay; in fact, I think there are 113, 117 or thereabouts, but I stand to be corrected on that. Those shacks, even though they are under a lease arrangement, are not caught up in this legislation because the shacks at Lucky Bay are under a headlease with the local council, the District Council of Franklin Harbour. I know that there are negotiations separate to this about extending the tenure of those shacks from 2026 to at least life tenure or maybe beyond.

I think my theory stacks up: the closest beach was the best destination to build a shack. The reason is that it was easy for the father of the family—and I say that with all due respect—the farmer in the family to go home every third day and check the sheep. It was important that the family farm was within striking distance of where the family was holidaying. As I have made clear, many shacks have been retained in these families for generations. The families have committed to caring for coastal shacks and, in the process, have contributed to the wider environmental wellbeing of our beaches—and our rivers, let's not forget that—provided healthy lifestyle opportunities and assisted our tourism sector. At this stage, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.