Crown Land Management (Life Lease Sites) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 March 2017.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (23:50): I will be brief. I would be happy to speak for hours on this because I love late night sittings where you get time to go into full detail, but I acknowledge that some members need to retire at some time tonight, so I will try to get to the pointy end of this. The bottom line is that consistently Australian Conservatives have said that we live in a democracy and that providing we meet the normal checks and balances on issues then we should have a right to enjoy that democracy. Therefore, I put on the public record that we will be supporting both bills of the opposition. To save time, I will not speak on each one. With your approval, Mr Acting President, I will combine the two because they are integrated, they are together. It is just that they had to be brought in, as I read it, because of different circumstances with tenure.

I have been down to Milang, and I place on the record a person who I am extremely proud of, now sadly passed away, Mr Bob Honour. His father served on the HMAS Sydney with my father. He lost his father on the HMAS Sydney. Fortunately, my father was one of three who actually got off. Nevertheless, approximately 645 Navy personnel, if not a few more, lost their lives. They lost their lives because they actually wanted to ensure that we had freedom of speech and freedom of democracy in this nation. Thus far, what they did from 1939 to 1945 has given us that opportunity and for that I will be eternally grateful.

Mr Bob Honour was a great supporter of my mother, almost as a legatee, for a long time after my father died. He inherited a holiday home from his family at Milang. I know that the Hon. Michelle Lensink did so much work down there. I know Milang pretty well because it is not very far from my home town and I frequent that area.

Unfortunately, this government does not want to allow the opportunity for those shacks to continue in any form of perpetuity. I do not understand the reason why, but probably it is driven by the extreme environmentalists of DEWNR. Really, all that is needed is to put in a proper effluent scheme or a common waste-management scheme, as I think they are called now, and nothing other than good can occur with those holiday homes. If those holiday homes were not there, part of it would be a salt pan and part of it would go back to reeds and be a haven for tiger snakes—there are plenty of other havens for tiger snakes in the environment around Lake Alexandrina—and a lot of income and a lot of opportunity to develop family would be lost.

That is just one example. There is the Coorong, Eyre Peninsula and Yorke Peninsula, and the list goes on. I know that the Liberal Party have had, for a very long time, support for freeholding or putting perpetuity into these sites. The Australian Conservatives, and before we amalgamated, the former Family First Party, have the same policy, whether it is national parks and wildlife or Crown land management.

I will give you another example: my daughter and son-in-law live at North Beach. There is a lovely family, who have employed lots of people and continue to, with a car dealership. They have a historic situation where, out in the sea, they have a lovely holiday home—I have been there—and it is really exciting because, at times, when the tide comes in, you cannot drive your car off that particular shack site until the tide recedes. They made the commitment and effort generations ago that that would be a good opportunity. Okay, we cannot have everyone building out in the sea—we are not Venice—but in this case it is historic and is what happened.

So, what is wrong with their being allowed to continue to do something like that? This is an extreme example, but I still put it forward. These are historic opportunities were people were able to build on sites. I have to commend the Liberal Party on this occasion. I have to question why the government will not show some leadership, and why they succumb to DEWNR and the extreme left of a department and say, 'No, no, we are going to extinguish those opportunities.'

Kids have grown up, generation after generation, enjoying these sites. They have bonded families, they have bonded communities, they have given a lot of enjoyment and a big investment has gone into those towns. If those sites were to be extinguished in their entirety, some of those towns would be almost non-existent.

I do not always agree with the Hon. Michelle Lensink on everything, and that is healthy, and is democracy, but on this occasion she is absolutely right. We support and commend this bill and we will be voting for it. Whilst I voted no for the plebiscite on marriage—proudly so—I will be proudly voting yes in favour of this bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (23:56): I will be brief also on these two bills and will address them at the same time. Firstly, I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for bringing forward these bills. It is about 28 years since life tenure leases were provided to lessees situated on Crown lands and in national parks, replacing terminating tenure, which existed for a further 19 years. On reflection, I believe these shacks should continue to exist and lessees be given the opportunity to transfer to transferable leases. With that, I support the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (23:57): In the spirit of the previous speakers, I will also be brief and also address my remarks in cognate. The comments in relation to the Crown Land Management (Life Lease Sites) Amendment Bill can be taken as read for the National Parks and Wildlife (Life Lease Sites) Amendment Bill.

Clearly, these two bills have been debated some five years ago, and on their introduction and summing-up in those cases I spoke in quite some detail about those and in my second reading, when I reintroduced them earlier this year. I also referred to those speeches, so rather than repeating all the information I have tried to provide those references so that anybody who wants all that detail can access that themselves.

Broadly speaking, there are a number of shacks—some 300 we understand—on Crown lands or on these national parks and wildlife life leases in a range of sites across South Australia, including Milang, Glenelg River, Fisherman Bay, Coorong, Kellidie Bay, Lucky Bay and a range on the Yorke Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. In relation to Glenelg River, unfortunately more shacks were removed there earlier this year; that is a travesty. People can see some of those shacks on our Facebook page, which is called Shacks in SA.

I would like to thank the Hon. Mr Brokenshire for his contribution. I was not aware that he knew Bob Honor as well as he did. Bob was a lovely bloke and a longstanding campaigner in favour of his shacks. I have no doubt that the Hon. Rob Brokenshire, with his regional connections, understands the value of shacks in South Australia. As I have said previously, there are a number of links between particular farming districts and particular shack areas that have longstanding traditions.

I would also like to thank the Hon. John Darley for his contribution and his ongoing support for shacks in South Australia. He has been particularly helpful to a number of shack lessees over the years because of his understanding of valuation and valuation methods. I know from my contact with a number of shack lessees that they are very appreciative of his support and assistance in that regard.

I would like to place on the record correspondence from one of the active shack associations and its proponent, Mr Brenton Chivell, who has been very active for the Innes Shack Owners Association, which is at the bottom of Yorke Peninsula. For the record, he contacted one of the potential parties in the next election, the NXT—or SA-Best—to seek their advice as to their particular position. He sent this message, which is dated 16 October. He said:

Morning, I represent the crown lease holders regarding the Shacks in the Innes National Park. Can you please advise of the position that your party has regarding these shacks (and the other 280 around SA in the same situation). These Crown Leases are presently non transferable life tenure leases with annual rates varying between $2k pa and $7k pa. The position on shacks under a Labour Govt has been to price them out of existence so that the owners run out of money and eventually remove them, where as the Liberal Govt—

it should say 'Party'—

see great value in these family shacks and pledge to change policy to see them able to be preserved for future generations. This has been ongoing between the two parties for over 30 years. I'm keen to hear what the position is from your party. Thanks, Brenton

I will commend the Nick Xenophon Team for providing a very quick response, within about an hour and a half, I think it is. It reads as follows:

Dear Brenton,

Thank you for your email to the Nick Xenophon Team Campaign Office regarding crown shack life tenure leases.

Nick Xenophon's SA-BEST are still reviewing their policies in preparation for the next State Election and I would encourage you to get back to us at a later time.

Kind regards—

I will not name the person as I have not sought their permission to use their correspondence. I think that is a pretty disappointing response. I would have thought that, particularly given the longstanding commitment in this place through their former colleague the Hon. Mr Darley, the Nick Xenophon Team might have had a more considered response that they might have been able to provide. I hope that is not the response they provide on all these issues—that, clearly, they have not thought about it and have asked anyone who contacts them on this sort of issue to contact them at some future time.

I just place those remarks on the record, because I think it is pretty important that people are well informed in the lead-up to the next election as there are clear differences in positions on this particular issue. With those comments, I commend both bills to the house.

Bill read a second time.