Shack Sites

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:03): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation questions with regard to shacks on crown land.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I understand that, in the late nineties, the Liberal government convened a shack site committee which reviewed each individual shack site area and considered whether it would be suitable for freeholding or long-term leases at that time and, if so, under what conditions. Many life tenure leases are now expiring as a result of the death of the last lessee on the lease. This means that many families who have enjoyed the use of a holiday shack, and have paid for this privilege, must now demolish or remove the longstanding family shack and remediate the land to its original condition. My questions are:

1. Can the minister advise what the current policy is on shack sites on crown lands, particularly with regard to freeholding or lease extensions?

2. Can the minister advise when this policy was last reviewed?

3. Does the minister believe that a new review should take place?

4. Would the minister consider reconvening a shack site committee for this purpose?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:04): I thank the honourable member for his question and his ongoing interest in this area. I have spoken about shacks in this place so many times now. I understand that there are fewer than 300 life tenure shack leases on crown land and fewer than 100 of those are in national park reserves.

The crown land subject to shack leases, as the honourable member said in his introductory remarks, has been assessed a number of times, most significantly in 1994, under the then Liberal government's shack site freeholding policy. The intention of this policy was to permit freeholding wherever possible. Six criteria had to be met for a shack to be eligible for freeholding, I am advised. All shack sites were assessed to identify those suitable for freeholding, taking into account criteria including public health requirements, continued public access to waterfront, flood and erosion issues and planning requirements.

Sites that met the criteria were sold to the occupant if they were agreeable to that course of action. Those that did not meet the criteria were issued with non-transferable life tenure leases, which means that the lease expires when the last lessee passes away. Life tenure leases require, of course, the payment of an annual rent, and that rent has been based on the premise that the state should receive a fair return for the private, exclusive use of its land assets. The honourable member has asked me questions about the rental issues in the past; I will not go there right now.

In terms of the government's policy, I can advise that there has been no change in that regard. I am not quite sure when the last review was conducted of shacks, so I will take that on notice and bring that back to him—not a review to do with rate setting, of course, but to do with tenure, I expect, is what he meant by his question. Do I think that there needs to be a new review? No, I do not. I stand by the policy of successive Labor and Liberal governments on this matter and therefore, no, there will be no new committees set up to reconsider the matter.