Crown Land Management (Section 78B Leases) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:48): Prior to the break, I was waxing lyrical about who went where on Eyre Peninsula for their summer holidays. I was generalising, of course, but it is a very strong theme that revolves through country South Australia, that of a family holiday at the shack.

Before I speak to the bill proper, I want to talk about my wonderful experience as a child enjoying our shack at Coffin Bay. My grandfather on my mother's side actually built the shack with a friend immediately post-World War II out of shell grit mixed with concrete—not much concrete, I think—and second-hand corrugated iron. Of course, immediately following the war, materials were hard to get. Anyway, they managed and built one big square room, which was subdivided by cupboards and curtains.

At that stage, the block apparently belonged to my grandmother's uncle Wilf Roediger. He called it his block, but I do not think there were any boundaries in place at that stage. That did not happen until our shack and most of the others in Coffin Bay were able to be freeholded in the 1990s, which was a significant move. We want to give others that same opportunity now.

I remember our excitement, as three young boys heading off to Coffins for our summer holidays. Because we shared the shack with other families, we had just 10 days available to us over that Christmas/new year to end of January break, so we wanted to make the most of it. My dad did not come down much. Mostly it was mum and the boys, so credit to her for managing us through our period of growing up. We learnt to swim and row rowboats and fish. As we got older, we must have had a good harvest one year because dad turned up with a seagull motor, which we put on the back of our 10-foot bonwood dinghy. We had a wonderful time and we learnt a lot of life skills there at the shack.

I even know a couple who met on the jetty at Coffin Bay and, as a result of that meeting, went on to marry and live happily ever after. All sorts of things can happen during a summer holiday at a shack. In more recent years, my wife and I have managed to acquire our own shack at Coffin Bay with a view to giving our kids and even our grandchildren the same opportunity.

A number of shacks will potentially be impacted by this legislation. In the electorate of Flinders, still at Coffin Bay, there is one shack that sits on Crown land. At Kellidie Bay, there are 13 shacks sitting on Crown land. Also at Kellidie Bay, but within a national park or the Kellidie Conservation Park, there are a further two shacks. There are areas with a large number of shacks: Milang has 73 on Crown land and Fisherman Bay has 30 on Crown land. The Coorong National Park, which is a different situation again, has 62 shacks on Crown land. There are 41 at Glenelg River and 20 in Innes National Park, in the seat of Narungga. There are many other district councils with smaller numbers. What we want to do is significantly improve the opportunity for long-term tenure for those shack owners.

In March 2018, the South Australian government made a commitment to create new opportunities for families to retain shacks on Crown land and in national parks. That commitment included providing certainty of tenure to families, who have one of these leases, by expanding the eligibility to maintain the lease in return for them upgrading the shack to meet contemporary safety, amenity and environmental standards.

There is responsibility on the shack owners to meet those standards before there is approval or progression of the tenure. The commitment also included investigating more freeholding of shacks on Crown land and also providing renewable tenure options to shacks located within national parks. It is a slightly different situation, but hopefully we can put all that on the table. The commitment also includes seeking fair valuation advice for the sale of shack sites and strengthening links between local rangers, volunteer groups and other shack owners and lessees.

It applies to shacks located on Crown land and in national parks that are on life tenure or fixed-term tenure leases where there is no existing arrangement for longer tenure at those sites. This legislation will not apply to outstanding matters from previous freeholding deeds and land management agreements and does not apply retrospectively to leases that have already been terminated or to shacks that have been demolished. That certainly has occurred in a number of settlements. Smoky Bay is one that I can think of.

In order to determine a practical way forward, the department has undertaken a comprehensive review of the legislation, regulations, policies, plans, standards and commitments governing shacks on Crown land and shacks in national parks, native title, co-management, contemporary safety, amenity, environmental standards and planning and development. I mentioned Smoky Bay earlier. I should remind the house that there are 11 shacks at Smoky Bay still on Crown land. Others have been held freehold in the past, but 11 still exist on Crown land.

The current legislation that governs shacks on Crown land and park management plans for national parks do not allow for any of these changes to existing shack tenure. These legal barriers must be addressed to allow leases to be converted to another tenure, which is fundamental for the Retaining Shacks commitment that the Marshall Liberal government gave in the lead-up to the last election. Hence, we are here debating the legislation.

There are also park management plans involved. Current park management plans for Coorong National Park, Innes National Park, Kellidie Bay Conservation Park on Eyre Peninsula and Little Dip Conservation Park do not envisage the retention of shacks within those parks. The government will seek to amend the park management plans for these parks to enable shacks to remain, subject to, as I said earlier, meeting the regulatory requirements and contemporary standards.

The regulatory requirements need to be complied with by certain parties in order to secure longer tenure for shacks on Crown land, and contemporary safety, amenity and environmental standards also need to be met. Other things to be considered include planning and development, building standards, wastewater management, natural hazards (including coastal flooding and erosion, riverine flooding and bushfire) and the amenity itself. Public access to the waterfront needs to remain.

Many shacks are located within the buffer zone of a 30 to 50-metre wide strip of Crown land and might already impact on public access. Upgrading the shacks, including any associated infrastructure, must not duly restrict or further restrict public access to or along the adjacent waterfront. There will be environmental and cultural heritage protection, and the government also recognises that local councils will have some responsibilities here, particularly in relation to development applications and enforcing compliance. When the legal barriers are addressed, shack sites and shacks can then be assessed for their suitability for longer tenure, freeholding or for a transferable term lease. This is a really exciting piece of legislation and it will mean a lot to many of my constituents.

In relation to Little Dip, Kellidie Bay and Cape Gantheaume conservation parks, there are no current arrangements for these parks to be co-managed. Given the low numbers of shack leases in these parks—as I said, in Kellidie Bay there are just two—an expression of interest will be sought from shack owners to determine whether or not they wish to be assessed for longer tenure. If any lessee wishes to be assessed and there are no other barriers to granting longer tenure over the shack site, the department will initiate the process to amend the relevant park management plans.

My congratulations go to the Minister for Environment and also his department on getting this legislation to the House of Assembly. I am disappointed that the opposition have chosen not to support this, but we will carry on regardless. It has been a long-term commitment of the Marshall-led opposition and then the Marshall government. It would be wonderful to think that we could give an opportunity to all those people who still own and enjoy shacks in some beautiful parts of South Australia to have some secure tenure to go forward with. It will encourage investment into those properties and it will also allow either the sale or transfer to other family members as time rolls on. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (15:59): I rise to make a brief contribution on this legislation and also acknowledge the work the Hon. Michelle Lensink has contributed to this policy position. In fact, if we go back to when I was campaigning in around 2013, the Hon. Michelle Lensink was paired with the seat of Mount Gambier and so visited on numerous occasions and certainly listened to the concerns of our local community on a range of issues.

Shacks and termination of leases when the last surviving person on that lease passes away were certainly issues which we took seriously and which helped form a policy position within the Liberal Party on changing the current situation had we won the 2014 state election. When visiting the area when I was an outdoor education teacher, there was nothing better than canoeing down the Glenelg River with a bunch of students. You would normally start up near Dartmoor and three or four days later you would be canoeing and your arms would be tired after very little sleep on a bit of foam mattress.

When you got around to Reedy Creek and Donovans, the shacks were always a welcome sight because they signalled that you were very close to Nelson and finishing the journey. It has certainly been a part of my life in the time I have spent in Mount Gambier and, I know, in the lives of many other people whose family either owns a shack or who know people who own a shack or even just visit and take photographs of the structures there. I certainly welcome this introduction by the Minister for Environment, David Speirs, to ensure that the Glenelg River shacks will remain in place.

It is quite an interesting development to watch a previous government's policy position and the impact it has on families and the outcomes of it. I hope that in future we do not develop policy positions that really try to grind people down into submission and achieve an outcome through what I would say would be a war of attrition versus common-sense policy and actually listening to the community you are meant to represent. The outcome of a war of attrition is the state that we see at the moment, where some of the shacks have been razed because the last person on the lease is deceased.

That can be quite distressing for other family members who are not only burying their grandfather, their father, their loved one, but then are incurring a massive cost on top of a funeral expense to remove the family shack down on the river, and some of those costs can be quite large. Some people do not have $25,000 on top of a funeral expense to pay that. I hope that in future, if decisions like this are to be made, a more sensible approach is taken versus a war of attrition and grinding people down to the situation we have at the moment.

Many of those shacks have been passed down from generation to generation. This legislation has been hard fought, but it now gives some certainty to the owners of those shacks and the families of those shacks that they will need to bring them up to code and up to standard but that the money they invest will not be wasted and can be enjoyed for generations to come. As I said, owners have been stuck in limbo for many years, and this has obviously caused a big issue, but I want to talk about some of the passionate people.

I need to acknowledge the District Council of Grant, Mayor Richard Sage and the previous CEO Trevor Smart, who helped facilitate the organisation of shack owners and, in fact, helped them incorporate into an associated body, the Glenelg River Shack Owners Association, so that they could structure themselves in such a way that their voice could be heard. So congratulations to Trevor Smart, the former CEO, Mayor Richard Sage and all councillors and council staff. Like my office, I am sure they have been regularly contacted by shack owners wanting to know what is occurring and when it is occurring.

I note it is complex legislation and it is pleasing to see a minister with resolve to push through difficult issues, instead of taking the easy road or shirking some of those issues. He is actually trying to work with his department on finding sensible solutions so that he and the government truly are representing the people of South Australia. Some of those people who told me their stories are people like the Telford family, the Gazzard family, the Holmes family, the Matthews family, as well as Brett Orr, who is the president of the association, and Kim Cawthorne.

Allowing renewable and transferable tenure under the proposed legislation gives shack owners a greater degree of autonomy and surety. This legislation also gives strong incentives for the owners to invest in their structures and bring them up to current safety and environmental standards, which is important particularly for those on the Glenelg River. It was pleasing to see that this was a continued commitment from the 2014 campaign into the 2018 campaign and it is being finally implemented in this term of government. I hope if parliament is going to be prorogued that this passes the upper house because people have waited for a very long time, 18 years in some instances, for this to occur.

The other very pleasing thing from a local member's point of view is the openness of minister Speirs on this issue. Every time I have rung his office or spoken to him, he has been open and honest. One of the first things he undertook was to put a moratorium on the automatic termination of shack leases. There were a number of families in the region who had a name on the lease of someone very elderly and, in fact, some people have passed away. But that moratorium gave those families a level of comfort and assurance that this government was looking out for them and aiming to implement the intent of the promise, even though it was going to take a long time or a period of time for the legislation to come before parliament and then hopefully be passed.

I would like to congratulate formally people like Brett Orr and Kim Cawthorne from the Glenelg River Shack Owners Association, who have worked very hard for many years both with the Hon. Michelle Lensink and minister Speirs, to keep this issue on the state government's radar. For the people who have waited years and years to see this result, I would like to assure them that we are now at the stage where this is changing the legislation. I sincerely thank the current Liberal government for honouring their commitment at the 2014 and 2018 elections to have this legislation passed. With that, I thank the current government and I thank all those people who have campaigned for a long time. May this pass both houses in a speedy fashion.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:09): I rise with some delight to speak on the Crown Land Management (Section 78B Leases) Amendment Bill 2019. I note the interest in the bill, whether people are involved in Crown land shacks or shacks in national parks. I certainly note the interest of Mr Geoff Gallasch in that regard, who has a Coorong shack in a national park. However, this bill today is about shacks on Crown land.

The issue for me, as it always has been since I have represented Milang, which has 73 of these shacks, is that the politics of envy has prevailed. Sadly, it still prevails today within the ranks of the Labor Party. They will not let some people have the ability to have some tenure with their shacks and to contribute to communities, and not just the regional communities where these shacks are, as they are in Hammond and surrounding regional electorates in the state, but also their home communities. Many of these people come from communities here in the city of Adelaide; some may have formerly voted Labor.

Having met with people, like the Milang shack owners group, I am not sure that too many are voting Labor at the moment because they have had to put up with the fact that they have only had lifetime tenure. So, if the person with the name on the lease dies, the shack has to be pulled down. That is one of the saddest things about what has happened down at Milang, where I believe there are now 73 shacks in place. This is an area that is significantly impacted by this legislation.

I congratulate the minister on bringing this issue forward. It is a commitment that those of us with shacks in our areas have lobbied hard to get on the table. The Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place was heavily involved previously. I absolutely congratulate minister Speirs, the current minister, on his resolve in bringing this matter forward. This issue is technical, it is not a simple process and it is going to get more interesting when we get to the national park legislation, especially where some shacks by some decree also come under native title.

I have had many discussions about native title, including the ridiculous situation at Currency Creek, where there is a town square in the middle of four property owners' land. They basically just put a pole in the middle and share the land, and they are supposed to keep road access. It is something I have been campaigning to sort through. It is difficult, but hopefully we can get a result there.

What annoys me with this issue is that the Labor Party are so fixated on anyone having success. They look at the success of someone with a $5,000 tin shed as their shack or a $20,000 shack at Milang. They think that it is terrible to have that option, to have that shack as a holiday place, as somewhere to go and enjoy, as I know many people do, whether in a national park or, as we are debating here today, on Crown land.

I want to acknowledge the Milang Shack Owners Association and Keith Turner, who is the president of that group. I also want to acknowledge World War II veteran Bob Honor (he is not with us anymore), who fought for years. I used to go down and meet with Bob and his wife, Zeta, on many occasions at their beautiful little shack at Milang. We would have long discussions about how we could sort through this process and get the right outcome for people who, in the case of these shacks at Milang, just want to have a very small piece of paradise that they can keep in their family.

In regard to shacks across the board, they are scattered along the South Australian coastline from Glenelg River in the South-East, as the member for Mount Gambier outlined, to Smoky Bay on the West Coast. The member for Flinders gave a rendition of the shacks over there. A lot of these shack precincts started out as places where farming families spent their summers to rest and enjoy the spectacular natural environment. Where the opportunity has existed, many shacks have been retained in families for generations. These families have committed to caring for coastal shacks and, in the process, have contributed to the wider environmental wellbeing of our beaches and rivers by providing healthy lifestyle opportunities and assisting our tourism sector.

During the previous government's 16-year tenure from 2002 to 2018, family shacks—for instance, those similar to the ones at Milang that were located on Crown land—were subject to life-tenure leases and, upon the death of the last named lessee, the shack was required to be demolished and the land returned to the government. Consequently, many shack lessees allowed their shacks to fall into a state of disrepair because there was no incentive to maintain or invest in them.

Investing in these shacks is something that could really brighten up some of these shack areas. People are doing a great job now, but if there were the opportunity for tenure and the appropriate protocols were put in place around ownership, they could spend money on their shacks and make them even more attractive.

It is ridiculous that this has not been exercised in the past. Instead, as the last named lessee on a licence passes away, the order goes out and the shack disappears. Quite frankly, it is a disgrace. I know of a transportable shack that was put in at Milang so that, if that dark day came, they would have to move it out. I would love to go there when this legislation passes—as I hope it does through both houses—and put in some secure steel and concrete footings so that shack does not have to move in the future.

As has been stated before, the current Marshall Liberal government from opposition made election commitments to retain shacks as part of vibrant holiday communities with a view to realising the benefits to both shack owners and the broader community. This commitment was made to provide shack lessees and their families with certainty of tenure by expanding the eligibility to maintain a lease in exchange for upgrading the shack to meet contemporary safety, amenity and environmental standards.

The commitment included investigating the leasehold of shacks on Crown land and renewable tenure options for shacks located in national parks. In that regard, on 4 April 2018, shortly after the election, the Minister for Environment and Water announced a moratorium on the practice of automatically terminating leases upon the death of the last named lessee, and placed all pending revaluation of shack sites on hold.

This bill puts in place life tenure leases for holiday accommodation purposes. As a bit of history around the bill, shack leases on Crown land were issued under section 78B of the Crown Lands Act 1929. In 2010, the Crown Land Management Act 2009 replaced the Crown Lands Act 1929 and included a transitional provision which prevents the holder of a section 78B lease from being granted a further interest at the site, i.e., better tenure whether freehold or term tenure.

This amendment bill removes the transitional provision, the legal barrier, which currently prevents shack lessees from applying for longer tenure. It also sets out a process where they may seek to surrender 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.

Another factor of this amendment bill is that it does not have a guarantee that a lessee will be granted improved tenure but it creates a pathway that will allow them to be considered for better tenure. As I indicated earlier in the debate, this current amendment bill does not impact shack leases within national parks. A separate process will be undertaken regarding relevant park management plans and collaboration with the board in cases where parks are or will be co-managed, and there will be a three-month consultation period.

This amendment bill also addresses an ongoing issue associated with the management of Crown land more broadly, creating a provision that allows for the minister to require the removal of unauthorised fixtures on Crown land. The minister will be able to determine if a fixture is unauthorised if it is in place without legal authority or excuse; for example, if the lessee did not obtain the lease or licence that granted permission for the erection of their structure.

As far as the policy process is concerned, the election commitment stated that a lessee will be required to upgrade their shack to meet contemporary safety, amenity and environmental standards before they are assessed for improved tenure at their shack site. That process will rely on existing regulatory regimes and standards and, in circumstances where development approval is required, it will rely on existing processes that will provide consistency and reduce duplication in processes.

A preliminary discussion paper was prepared by the government and put out for public consultation in early June this year for approximately five weeks. Approximately 250 survey responses were received, which is significant. This paper detailed the regulatory and policy considerations associated with implementing the Retaining Shacks election commitment. I must commend the minister for getting his department organised. The Department for Environment and Water performed extensive face-to-face consultation in regions across South Australia where the shacks are located, and they met with representatives of the shack lessees, local councils, traditional owners and engaged with Friends of Parks groups, in addition to consulting with relevant regulatory authorities.

As indicated, the surrender of a life tenure lease will be on the terms determined by the minister and a demonstrated ability to meet the identified contemporary safety standards will determine a successful surrender, but the relevant issues at each site will differ depending on the circumstances. It is important to note that shack lessees are not obliged to upgrade their shacks as a result of this process.

Rather, they will elect—they will have the freedom of choice from this Marshall Liberal government—either to participate or to remain on their current section 78B lease. The minister will continue to be bound by the objects and principles of the Crown Land Management Act 2009, including ensuring that all decisions are made with consideration to triple bottom line outcomes—social, economic and environmental—as well as observing the principles of ecologically sustainable land management.

The first of the 73 shacks at Milan was established in 1947, so post war. They have been there for decades, apart from the ones that sadly had been taken away under the previous regime, until the minister quite wisely put that moratorium in place so that people could live with some security until we get this legislation through the houses. With respect to these shacks at Milang, in the past there have been very positive talks with the local government sector. The Alexandrina Council was quite proactive about working to get a good outcome, because the council can see what these shacks do for the local community.

You can go down to Milang any time of the year, but obviously the warmer months always bring a crowd. You can go down there in the middle of winter and there are people at the shacks and there are people in the caravan park, and these people are vital to keep this lakeside community as it is on Lake Alexandrina, progressive and successful, to keep people touring around that area down towards Clayton, around to Goolwa, and back to Langhorne Creek to the wineries and just enjoy a beautiful part of Hammond. I commend the Alexandrina Council for its proactive work.

In regard to other shacks that are on Crown land in my electorate, there is one at Pompoota in the Mid Murray Council. At Punyelroo in the Mid Murray—which is a great skiing spot on the river; not that I have been up on skis for a while—there is one. There is also one in Punyelroo.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; the Deputy Premier is scaring me now. There is one at Scrubby Flat there in the Mid Murray Council area that is on Crown land, and at Walker Flat South there is one on Crown land.

I think this legislation is timely. It was only ever going to happen under a Liberal government, and I do not think that anyone should delay this process, and I say that sincerely. People who have shacks in my electorate have been coming to me. To be fair, most of them do not even vote for me, but that does not matter. I want to get the right outcome. They are not voting because they do not like me: it is because they do not live in my electorate. They are not registered at Milang.

An honourable member: They do like you.

Mr PEDERICK: They do like me, the minister responds, and I felt that. I felt the love when I have gone to the meetings of the Milang Shack Owners Association and explained to them, over far too long, about the outcomes we want to get for them so that they can have tenure, so that we can have vibrant communities on these Crown land sites and get a lot better outcome. There still will be access in front of these shacks for the public to get down to the lake. That is a no-brainer. That is going to happen every day of the week.

People who are against this idea need to have a good, hard look at what is going on here. We can get a far better outcome where we have shacks which are maintained and upgraded in a fantastic way and which are brought back to the glory days of 50 years ago when these shacks were all brightly painted and looked absolutely fantastic.

They still do, but sadly, because of the lack of tenure, some people have not spent the money to give the absolute love they can to these shacks to get them in a really smart condition. There will need to be some money involved here, obviously, getting shacks up to regulatory standards. There will obviously be fire control standards and a whole range of things. As I said in regard to that, in years gone by, especially in regard to the Milang shacks, the Alexandrina Council has been very proactive and has had proactive discussions with the shack owners group so that they can get the right outcome.

I commend this legislation. I wish its speedy passage through this house and the other place. I want people who know the regions, who know where these shacks are, to appreciate the beauty of these spots, including Milang in my electorate, including down at Glenelg River, including at Smoky Bay, which is a fantastic spot on the West Coast of South Australia in the member for Flinders' electorate, and appreciate what these shacks are.

There is no problem with people having multimillion-dollar shacks, no problem at all, but they are certainly not that. As I indicated, some of these shacks, especially in the national parks, which we are not talking about here today, might be worth a few thousand dollars, and some would be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Let's do the right thing, let's commit to this legislation, let's give people certainty and let's have that certainty go through to the future.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (16:30): I rise this afternoon to acknowledge and thank all the members of this place who have made a contribution to this debate. I thank the deputy leader for her comments on the bill. While I am disappointed to learn that the Labor opposition will oppose the bill, I look forward to responding to the deputy leader's specific questions during the committee stage and clarifying any aspects that she would like to have more information on.

I also wish to thank the members for Narungga, MacKillop, Flinders, Mount Gambier and Hammond for their contributions on the bill. All those members have the job of representing geographical areas where these shack communities are found, so they have an often intimate understanding of the communities and the individuals who are impacted by the uncertainty, which has been the case to date, around the tenure of these shacks. They know the role that these communities have in the culture of those particular areas. They know that during the summer and during holiday weekends their communities are absolutely filled with people who are getting along to the shacks, buying produce from local shops, filling up at a local servo, going to the fishing tackle shop and so on.

These communities are really providing an economic stimulus to regional South Australia. When you add them all together, while not a huge number of shacks fall into the categories that we are talking about today, the loss of those shacks in these particular communities would be catastrophic economically. So it has been great to hear from those members who have a real understanding of the positive impact that these shacks have on the communities.

It has also been really good from my point of view during my time as the shadow minister, and since becoming the minister in March 2018, to meet with many of the people who have associations with these communities. Whether they be shack owners or people who have family members connected with shack communities, it has been good to hear their stories, to be able to visit their shacks and to see the verandahs and front yards where people have sat for generations—grandparents and great-grandparents, extending back through the generations.

These are often great assets within particular families or groups of friends. These are not necessarily financial assets; they are assets that revolve around and are built up through the social capital of families and these communities. I have really enjoyed being able to interact with these communities during my time as minister. In particular, I want to thank Geoff Gallasch for his role. Geoff has been a really passionate advocate for shacks across South Australia and for the rights and also the responsibilities of shack owners across South Australia.

It has been great to have Geoff at the end of the phone, providing advice on particular communities and having input into the process as we seek to shape a process going forward. From a government point of view, we want a process that is responsible and puts in place the appropriate environmental and health and safety protections, but of course also values the role of shacks in regional South Australia and seeks to create a pathway through which we can ensure that these shacks stay part of the particular communities they find themselves in.

I really do not want to say a great deal more than that, other than to say that this bill gives us the opportunity, in an administrative sense, to move to the next stage of creating more certain tenure for these shacks across regional South Australia. When I became the minister, we put in place a moratorium, which meant that when those final lessees on the leases passed away the lease would not be extinguished and that the shacks would not be torn down.

I understand that, unfortunately, some of those last lessees have passed away since the moratorium came into place. The moratorium has given their families certainty and a pathway forward to get that certainty of tenure. It has been a difficult time for those people, but fortunately, because of the moratorium, unlike families in the past, there is actually a bit more certainty with this legislation. I really hope that it passes this house today and moves into the Legislative Council.

I am hopeful that it will pass the Legislative Council and then we will be able to get on with providing certainty of tenure—increased tenure in some circumstances and perhaps freehold in other circumstances—where the type of land and the condition of the property allows us to do that. We know that that will not apply to all the shacks. Shack owners and shack associations are quite aware of the limitations of some of the locations and some of the properties.

Where possible, we will move towards freeholding; where that is not possible, we seek to provide a longer length of tenure so that people can actually get down and invest in these communities. As the member for Hammond said, there is a real need to see investment in some of these communities. People have been holding back from that investment because of the uncertainty of tenure. If we can get over that, we can get more investment into the communities. They are already vibrant and healthy communities, but I think we can take that to the next level again.

I reiterate my thanks to the members of this place who have provided contributions. I thank the public servants in my department and further afield in other departments who have been part of the process thus far. I particularly thank Mr Geoff Gallasch and his team in the shack associations across South Australia who have been part of the advocacy and the promotion around this.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Dr CLOSE: This refers to the disposal of Crown lands to which this change applies. I presume that that is in the context of potentially disposing of the Crown land to the person who currently holds the shack lease so that it might become freehold. My question is: what financial interaction is being contemplated? Will the person who has held a lease be required to pay the Crown anything as part of transforming into a freehold, should that be approved, or is there any other kind of financial arrangement that is being contemplated?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am advised that, as I mentioned in my concluding remarks, many of these shacks will not go down this track. Some may. If there is a situation where a freeholding process goes through the provisions of the act—and this is the broader act, not included in the amendments we have before us today—to require us to dispose of the land at market value, that market value can be determined by the Valuer-General or a private valuer approved by the Valuer-General. The land would be sold for the value of the land minus any improvements. In the case of much of the land that we have in question, those improvements probably have quite a minimal value.

Dr CLOSE: In the event of what I think is the more likely trajectory, where a shack is in the circumstances of the last person on the lease dies and it is surrendered, that may become a situation where the lease is able to be passed on or transferred. Is there any financial exchange in the process of that occurring or being given permission to change the lease terms to that?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In the circumstances of an exchange of a lease between two private individuals, person A and person B, that would be an entirely private matter. It might be an inheritance situation, where that would transfer as per the requirements of any will that was in place. It may be the sale of an asset, which would be a private situation, and that could be for as little or as much as people thought their asset was worth or were willing to relinquish their asset for.

However, as part of the purchase of one of those leases, the agreement continues with the government under person B—so it was person A's lease and it becomes person B's lease—but the lease costs in terms of the rent payable continue at that level until revalued.

Dr CLOSE: At the point when the current lease arrangements are altered, having gone through the process of determining whether that is deemed appropriate, at that point does the person who currently holds the lease that would terminate on the death of the last person, becoming a lease that is able to be transferred, pay any money to the government for being able to change the terms of their lease?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, apart from just the standard application fees for such an assessment.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Dr CLOSE: My question relates to new subsection (1), where 'the lessee must first apply to the Minister in such a manner as the Minister thinks fit'. I ask the minister to briefly summarise the criteria that the minister intends to use to determine whether the minister will in fact see fit.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There are three main areas that we will look at: safety requirements, amenity requirements and environmental requirements. In short, a shack will need to be adequately protected from environmental hazards, particularly those shacks located along the coast, including coastal hazards such as flooding, erosion or sand drift. They are really the main things that we will be looking at from a safety point of view.

When it comes to amenity, shacks will be required to maintain their sites in a neat and tidy condition. This generally means making sure that buildings are kept in a reasonable state of repair and the area free of litter or other pollution. There are a number of pieces of associated legislation, such as the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 and its regulations, the Housing Improvement Act 2016 and its regulations, and the Environment Protection Act 1993 and its regulations. It is no different from a dwelling or building anywhere else; you would expect them to be meeting the requirements of those three pieces of legislation.

I mentioned safety and amenity. The third point is environmental requirements that shacks will need to meet. The main one to be considered is wastewater management. The South Australian Public Health Act 2011 provides a head of power enabling the administration of legislation and codes relating to on-site wastewater systems. The South Australian Public Health (Wastewater) Regulations 2013 detail the legislative requirements for on-site wastewater systems and there is a prescribed code under the regulations of the SA Health On-site Wastewater System Code 2013. All of those will need to be taken into consideration when dealing with wastewater on the site.

Further, the Environment Protection Act 1993 and its subordinate legislation contains provisions to prevent or minimise environmental harm. I guess the real potential risk we are trying to minimise is wastewater entering waterways, given the location of many of these shacks along South Australia's coast, and some river environments as well. These requirements for on-site wastewater management will need to be considered in any offer of better tenure to ensure that a shack site is compliant with health and environmental standards, particularly in areas close to sensitive waterways. The community wastewater systems compliance with the SA Community Wastewater Management Systems (CWMS) code will also be required to be met.

Dr CLOSE: In the event that a shack lessee attempts to fulfil those criteria and is unable to demonstrate that the wastewater treatment is of sufficient standard, is that situation then simply allowed to continue? I understand that changing the circumstances of the lease would lead to declining, but, nonetheless, you have now found out that there is a problem. Does that then simply remain or is there some effort that needs to be put in by the government or the lessee?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is a really good and sensible question. It would trigger the various requirements under those pieces of legislation, particularly the responsibilities of the EPA, which would step in at that point. You would hope that if someone were going down this track they would not out themselves as an offender, but if they did and they were not meeting the requirements that we expect, the various protections under the Environment Protection Act and I think also the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act would also just kick in and that would be dealt with.

Inevitably there will be some shacks that are not quite at the standard we would expect at the moment. Hopefully, this process will lift the standard of the environmental requirements that are being met in these communities.

Dr CLOSE: Is there a liability, therefore, on the government as the owner—because they are the landlord of the land at least, if not the shack—that there is a lease arrangement that has enabled people to build? Is there any liability on the government to audit now, regardless of whether there is application, and to do anything about anything that they come across?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Our current lease conditions require that these things occur. They may not necessarily be at the standard that you would apply to a house in a suburb in Adelaide, just because of the nature of the properties and their locations, but the current lease conditions do require these things to be adequately dealt with. There are inspections and visits to these properties from time to time.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (8 and 9) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (16:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.