HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CROWN LAND MANAGEMENT (LIFE LEASE SITES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 May 2013.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:42): The government opposes this bill. The bill seeks to amend the Crown Land Management Act 2009 to provide for long-term tenure arrangements. These arrangements would apply to shack sites on crown land currently held under life tenure crown leases. In 1994 the Liberal government introduced a shack site freeholding policy that aimed to enable lessees to purchase their holiday shacks on crown land. It was also the Liberal government that was surprisingly responsible at the time and made the decision to assess shack sites before determining if they were suitable for freeholding.

Again being surprisingly responsible, the criteria set in determining the outcome for shacks included public health requirements, in particular effluent disposal, adequately addressing flooding and erosion issues, provision for legal access to the site, and consideration of environmental issues and continued public access to waterfront. Those shack sites that were deemed suitable for freeholding were sold to the occupants. The occupants of any site that did not meet the criteria were offered life tenure leases which expire on the death of the last remaining lessee.

It is those shacks that were considered unsuitable for long-term occupation that this bill now seeks to provide for. This bill seeks to provide long-term arrangements to the occupants of shack sites who currently hold a life tenure lease. This is a key example of the Liberal Party either having amnesia or just grandstanding based on irresponsible policy for election purposes.

I understand the bill also seeks to transfer the responsibility for the management of shack leases to local government. The bill requires that any lease entered into by a council must contain conditions relating to access to the site, infrastructure, management of environmental issues, effluent disposal, the built form of structures on the site, and safety and security. This is not universally supported by councils with concerns that they would be responsible for the management and risks associated with shack sites for very little benefit.

The Liberal Party would be happy to pass this responsibility onto local councils, contradict their own previous policy and take away public access to prime waterfront land. The bill removes safeguards in the Crown Land Management Act in relation to the public waterfront land. The current legislation requires consultation when exclusive use of this land is proposed, recognising that waterfront land is an important public asset to be enjoyed by everyone. The bill removes this requirement from these shack sites. This gives shack lessees additional preferential treatment when compared to anybody else wishing to occupy waterfront crown land. This is what the Liberal Party will do. They seek to benefit a few people to the detriment of many. This bill should be unanimously opposed and the Liberal Party should be ashamed of their poor policy, their contradiction of past policy and their lack of care for the public at large.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:47): The government opposes this bill which is the Liberal Party at their privatising best. Ms Lensink wants to hand out prime chunks of crown land to benefit a select few. The Liberal Party should be ashamed of this blatant electioneering which not only contradicts their 1994 policy that resulted in life tenure leases but also shows a clear lack of care for the environment and the public at large.

In 1994 the Liberal government introduced a shack site freeholding policy that enabled lessees to purchase shacks occupying crown land if they were suitable. Their suitability depended on public health requirements, continued public access to the waterfront, flood and erosion issues, and planning requirements. Sites that met that criteria were sold to the occupant and those who did not meet the criteria were issued with life tenure leases. This was their policy, but now it appears that they have forgotten this.

It appears that with this bill the Liberal Party had a random idea. Mr Brokenshire had a thought bubble, the Liberals got a random idea that they haphazardly turned into a bill—a random idea that not only stands in contradiction to themselves but also stands as a risk to public health and the environment. The bill removes safeguards in the Crown Land Management Act in relation to public waterfront land. The current legislation requires public consultation when exclusive use of the land is proposed, recognising that waterfront land is an important public asset to be enjoyed by everyone. This bill removes this requirement for the shack sites. This gives shack lessees additional preferential treatment when compared to anyone else wishing to occupy waterfront crown land.

This is what the Liberals would do. They seek to benefit a few people to the detriment of many. This same concept has also been taken up in the National Parks and Wildlife (Life Lease Sites) Amendment Bill, also introduced by the Hon. Michelle Lensink. This bill would allow parts of our park system to be turned into private real estate at the cost of the public benefit and enjoyment. It is essentially a step towards privatising our national parks. This is incompatible with the intent of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. This bill before us should be recognised for what it is: inconsistent, ill thought out and deplorable policy, so I oppose the bill.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:49): I rise very briefly to indicate my support for this bill and to commend the Hon. Michelle Lensink for continuing to campaign so passionately on this issue. At the outset I foreshadow that I am seeking advice as to whether it is possible to move amendments to the bill that would provide a further option of freeholding shack sites for a reasonable market price where they satisfy infrastructure requirements. I would also be proposing that there be an agreement from the majority of lessees in a given area before council proceeds down the path of what is being suggested by the bill. I have flagged these amendments with the Hon. Michelle Lensink and look forward to further discussions with her on these issues.

The history of shack sites in our state began during the Depression era, when people camped alongside coastal areas and riverfronts. Shacks were modest and progressively built from scrap building materials, such as timber, iron and kerosene cans. This provided a cheap and affordable getaway for many families. Up until the late 1970s, the Crown issued annual licences to shack owners. From the late seventies onwards, annual licences were converted to terminating miscellaneous leases. Coincidentally, the termination date of many of these miscellaneous leases usually fell at about the same time as a state election. Shack leases were usually renewed without delay to avoid politicising the issue and therefore offset any electoral landslides.

Up until the late 1980s, the philosophy of the then government was that shacks were depriving the public of access to the waterfront and they should be removed. This policy abruptly changed to one of environmental considerations. However, around 1989, as the state election loomed, the government of the day afforded life tenure leases to lessees, together with a once-off opportunity to add other names to the lease. Once again, this avoided any public electoral damage and provided a bandaid solution to the shack lease issue for the time being.

Following the election of a Liberal government in the early nineties, a decision was made to offer freeholding to shack lessees when it could be shown that any environmental problems could be appropriately addressed and resolved. A special shack committee was established to review all shack locations and recommend where freeholding would be appropriate.

Since 2009, the government has revised the rentals of these sites based on a report prepared by a valuer from the private sector, which I believe to be both flawed and inaccurate. I have formally objected to the rentals and argued with three ministers about this issue continuously and believe that the private valuer's advice set rentals at least 30 per cent in excess of private market rentals. The government now accepts my position on the rental, however, has refused to adjust rentals retrospectively.

The bandaid that was applied in the late eighties is now beginning to peel off. In many cases, generations of families who have had the enjoyment of using the shack are required to pay exorbitant and incorrect rentals and to remove the shacks at their own expense when the last remaining lessee dies.

There is no question that the outrageous increases in rent most lessees have experienced since 2009 have compounded the problems around shacks. There is also no doubt that lessees are unhappy with the government's management of the leases. This was clearly shown today by the demonstration out the front, which attracted a couple hundred people, many of whom travelled great distances to lend their support.

I note that the South Australian Tourism Commission's Best Backyard campaign has recently launched a video which highlights the Yorke Peninsula as a holiday destination and encourages South Australians to holiday within the state. The video tells the story of a young family who go down to a shack at Black Point. Shacks have played a big part in creating South Australia's identity, so much so that the government highlights that point as part of this campaign. It beggars belief then that at the same time another government department is trying to get rid of shacks altogether. The government is trying to have its cake and eat it too. The government has failed to recognise the historic significance of these shack areas.

The bill proposed by the Hon. Michelle Lensink proposes to allow the government to transfer control of shack areas to the relevant local government authority, subject to satisfying environmental requirements. This is a positive step and, once again, I commend the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her initiative.

As at 2013, there are still about 450 Crown shacks, of which 150 are situated in national parks. With the improved technology solutions available today, there is no question that the 300 shack sites on Crown land may be able to be freeholded, providing additional revenue to the Crown, reducing compliance costs and also stimulating the building industry in those cases where the lessee decides to rebuild their shack. This would also seem to provide a reasonable addition to the proposed scheme and I look forward to hearing the views of all honourable members on this issue. The government should make no mistake about it. I will continue to do my part on this issue and ensure that the issue of shacks is resolved once and for all. With that, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:54): I will be brief, but I want to put on the public record Family First's position regarding the Hon. Michelle Lensink's bill. Simply summarising it, we support the bill, endorse the bill, and congratulate the honourable member for putting the bill forward. I declare that my family do have a holiday home ourselves, but ours is not in a precarious position when it comes to tenure. In a democratic society I believe it is only fair and reasonable, apart from where there are extreme circumstances where you would not be able to guarantee long-term tenure, that these people, their children and future generations—grandchildren and so on—have the right to know they have some permanency of tenure. With that, we will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:56): I am not going to speak at length. I did speak in some detail when I introduced this particular bill and also in relation to the sister bill, the National Parks and Wildlife (Life Lease Sites) Amendment Bill, but I would just like to make a few additional remarks.

I would like to thank all honourable members who have made contributions on this bill and particularly endorse the contribution by the Hon. John Darley which I think outlines the history very well. I acknowledge his ongoing interest in this and the invaluable service that he has provided to a number of lessees in advising them on valuations and those sorts of matters that he understands better than most of us.

We had a rally today and I think we had well over 100 people. They came from the West Coast, so some of those people would have had a six to eight hour journey; we had people come from Mount Gambier at the other end of the state, so they had a 5½ hour journey; and that bus trip even included people who came from across the border from Casterton in Victoria who came to support the rally. I would like to thank all those people who have made the effort to express their democratic right to protest on the steps of the parliament and to commend the newly formed Shack Owners Association, in particular, president, Mr Geoff Galasch, and vice-president, Mr Brenton Chivell, because they have got themselves organised, as they necessarily need to do, in order to demonstrate how important this issue is to them.

One of the comments I made on the steps related to a series which I think has been produced by the ABC and has been on the History Channel. It is a show called Building Australia, which is narrated by John Doyle, and it talks about all the different forms of housing that have been unique to Australia. It devoted an entire episode to something called the weekender, and that features shacks. It also features some properties that are in national parks. People might not be aware, but if you happen to stay in a ski property on Australian ski slopes, you would be staying in a crown lease that is in a national park. I have not heard too many suggestions that all those properties should not be there, or that it is a dreadful thing that enterprises are there and people are making money out of them, but I might be straying from my speech.

In that episode I note that one of the unions in New South Wales set up a whole lot of shack sites because they recognised that families needed cheap holidays, and that was one way to accommodate them, so these shacks do form a part of our heritage and our history, and I think the attempt to blatantly just say, 'They shouldn't be there,' for reasons outlined by the Labor government, are wrong.

I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the two ALP speakers. I am not sure why they needed two, but that is up to them. They are correct in saying that local government does not universally support this measure, but it is a measure that enables councils to opt in, with the amendment that I understand will be moved by the Hon. John Darley, in conjunction with a ballot to be taken by the shack lessees to opt into this model.

I would be the first person to acknowledge that there are some questions that remain in relation to this bill, but there is a whole lot of other legislation that does not explicitly prescribe everything in great detail. It is almost like providing the opportunity for a contractual arrangement. Contract law is well understood through the centuries and that parties come together and reach an agreement that obviously will be for their mutual benefit. Some of those details are to be worked out.

I get very tired of hearing some of the arguments put forward by this Labor government and, indeed, some of the members of the department about exclusive waterfront land and lack of access. I would urge members to go and have a look and talk to some of the people who own these shacks. I cannot think of a single example where people are excluded from access to the beaches or the riverfront. I may have mentioned it previously, but within the Coorong there would not be access to Williams Beach if it were not for the shackies. They clear the path because there are no park rangers to do that work anymore. The shack lessees care very deeply for the environment. They go there because they appreciate it, and they keep the place tidy. They have often cleaned up vandalism and they look after those areas because they take great pride in it.

I did not actually hear the word 'elitist' used in one of the Labor member's speeches, but I hear the tones of it and I make the comment, why should anybody have a property on the waterfront at Glenelg, West Beach, Tennyson or anywhere else along the coast of South Australia? I do not quite see how these shacks are doing anything in particular that gives them exclusive rights. In any case, there are many environmental issues that will be addressed in terms of upgrading the amenities.

This is not some sort of random idea or amnesia, as I have been accused of by the Labor Party. This has been around since 2005 when Mitch Williams and I think even the leader here, the Hon. David Ridgway, advanced this bill in a very similar form. So, the Liberal Party has a longstanding support for shacks.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! There is too much conversation in the chamber.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I also understand that in relation to when the Liberal Party last lost office there may have been proposals for further freeholding which was not signed in time for the election, unfortunately, and therefore some of these areas have missed out. But I do wish to congratulate all the shack lessees who have taken the time to participate. We wish them good health. Some of them are hanging on, given that they may well be the last person on the lease, but if there is a change of government next year, they will have our full support.

Bill read a second time.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT