Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Shack Sites Shack Sites The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council Shack Sites The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:49): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation a question about demolition of shacks in South Australia. Leave granted. The Hon. K.J. Maher Legislative Council The Hon. K.J. Maher: You just asked that question; that was the one before. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, no; this is packet number 10. As many of my esteemed colleagues would be aware, shacks found along beach and river areas have been part of the Australian lifestyle since people first discovered the pleasure of combining holidays and coastlines. In fact, many of us, I am sure, have fond memories of visiting some of South Australia's most beautiful areas and maybe even learning to fish for the first time, because of an opportunity to stay or visit with friends or family in some basic shack accommodation. Most of us were not taking million-dollar hotels. That part of our culture is slowly being eroded because of the life tenure shack lease agreement which requires shacks to be demolished upon the death of the lessee. These leases were introduced in the 1980s, with the aim of getting rid of shacks from public lands. The Hon. I.K. Hunter Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Who were they introduced by, Robert? The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Mid 1980s. The Hon. I.K. Hunter Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Yes, but by whom? The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Labor government, sir. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Can we allow the question to be asked. You'll have plenty of time to answer the question. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you. They were introduced in the 1980s with the aim of getting rid of shacks from public lands. The Country Times reported last week that the first of the Innes National Park's iconic shacks will be— An honourable member Legislative Council An honourable member: Who's the editor there? The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Very good editor, being ably assisted by her son. The Country Times reported last week that the first of the Innes National Park's iconic shacks will be demolished under this agreement. I am informed the shack in question is known as Sloggs' Motel and was left in the 1980s to a group of mates by the owner following his death, but later on the young men were told that only one person's name could be on the lease. The person they nominated has now passed away and not only will the family and friends who have enjoyed this small pleasure for the past 63 years no longer be able to spend time at the shack, but they are required by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources to pull the shack down at their own expense. The minister is given to some theatrical language in this chamber from time to time and maybe he has watched a few disaster movies too many, but even he must see— The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The honourable member, just for a sec. It is a very long explanation, so at least keep all the opinions to a minimum and get to the facts of the question. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will get back to Sloggs' Motel with your guidance, sir. In the case of Sloggs' Motel, it is believed the Innes family stipulated the shacks were to be retained in the arrangement they made— The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order. You just directed him to keep the opinion to a minimum. In fact, there is meant to be no opinion in questions in question time. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: That's right. Continue. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: In the case of Sloggs' Motel, it is believed the Innes family stipulated the shacks were to be retained in the arrangement they made when the shacks were handed over to the government. Now, apparently, extensive research has failed to find this agreement and the shack is sadly having to come down. My questions therefore to the minister are: 1.	Why does the government see unobtrusive shacks on waterfront land in this state as environmental hazards, but million-dollar waterfront properties to be built on similar sites as no problem? Is the environmental impact of a property lessened by the dollar value the owner pays in land taxes? 2.	Why does this government continue to try to force people out of these shacks rather than encouraging good stewardship through ongoing tenure with councils appointed to control and manage the shack sites? Surely this would encourage people to spend money on the shacks to overcome any environmental concerns and as a consequence reduce the already low environmental impact many of these properties pose? The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Minister—ignore all opinion. The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (16:53): Thank you, Mr President. I don't have the advantage the questioner, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, had of snoozing through all of that question, all the very long explanation, but I do thank him for his very important question. I have spoken about shacks in this place before many times. I'm not sure whether the honourable member was in fact present and listening to my answer; that is another thing altogether. However, I can go through some of the information I have given the chamber previously. There are, I understand, fewer than 300 life-tenure shacks left on crown land and fewer than 100 in national park reserves. I think the shack the honourable member was referring to most specifically is Sloggs' Motel in Innes National Park. It is one of the difficult cases which we and former Liberal governments have struggled with in relation to the difficult policy question: should there be private land or home ownership in a national park? Should there be individual privately-held parcels of land? This is particularly so when, in these instances, they are usually on the best parcels of land, either on the foreshore or up on clifftops overlooking the shore or along river frontages, for example: the prime real estate which South Australians would like to be able to enjoy. However, in this instance—the instance the honourable member mentioned, and in fewer than 100 other remaining life-tenure shack leases—they are in national park reserves. This was a difficult question dealt with in the past by previous governments, Labor and Liberal. The crown land subject to shack leases has been assessed a number of times, as I have said in this place previously, most significantly in 1994 under the then Liberal government's shack site freeholding policy. I am not quite sure who the minister of the day was in this regard: the Hon. Mr Brokenshire might be able to assist me. Who was the Liberal minister? It would have been one of your colleagues at the time. The intention of the policy was to permit freeholding—that is, the purchase of land wherever possible. Six criteria had to be met for a shack to be eligible for freeholding. All shack sites were assessed to identify those suitable for freeholding, taking into account criteria including public health requirements, continued public access to the waterfront, flood and erosion issues and planning requirements. Sites that met the criteria were sold to the occupant if they were agreeable. Those that did not meet the criteria were issued with non-transferable life-tenure leases which meant that the lease expired when the last lessee passed away. So the criteria at the time was made very plain to all those occupants of shack sites, particularly those in national parks—that this would be a life-tenure lease. Life-tenure leases require the payment, of course, of an annual rent. This rent has always been based on the premise that the state should receive a fair return for the private and exclusive use of its land assets. Again, we come back to the difficult policy question that maybe that is fair enough to do on crown land but should that be a policy of government in relation to land in national park reserves? Periodic re-evaluation of the annual rent for these leases is undertaken. Shack rents are set by obtaining a land value from an independent valuer and applying a rate of return to that value. In 2010 the former minister agreed to seek independent advice from another jurisdiction regarding the rent-setting method. The New South Wales Valuer General and New South Wales Valuer in private practice considered this advice, and the department has set the rent appropriately based on that advice. Land valuers have also consistently advised my department that, while the overall market is somewhat depressed, investigations reveal that absolute beachfront properties attract a premium over land located beyond beach frontage. This has led to waterfront sites attracting particularly high land values. However, again, it is not just the pecuniary or monetary setting for these land valuations that is important. The key aspect in regard to life-tenure leases in national parks is the fundamental question: should there be private ownership of land and homes in national parks in this state? The policy position of this government and governments prior to this government, going all the way back to the Liberal governments of the 1990s, is that the answer to that question is no.