| 
  
    
Tuesday 26 March  2020  
  Hansard of the Legislative Council 
     
    BRICKMAKERS  POINT LANDSLIP BILL - Clarification 
  
[12.16 p.m.] 
  Mrs HISCUTT (Montgomery - Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council) -  Mr President, I want to make a statement of clarification on the  Brickmakers Point Landslip Bill, which we tried to deal with yesterday.   
I wish to  address the statement made last evening by the member for Rosevears in relation  to statements I made in the Chamber yesterday.   I understand he was reading from a letter.  I understand it relates to whether the statements  in question - as to whether the property owners to whom the Brickmaker Point  Landslip Bill 2020 relates were aware of the details of the financial offer  proposed through the bill, and whether residents had been advised in February  that the assistance bill was being developed and that it would be consistent  with the Rosetta Landslip Act 1992 - were inaccurate. 
I offered  information to the Chamber to the effect that the property owners were told it  would be consistent with the Rosetta Landslip Act 1992, which was  75 per cent, but further that the Government did not actually say it  would be 75 per cent per se; it would be consistent with the Rosetta  act, and that has come from Hansard.   
First, I should  have prefaced that statement with the statement 'I am advised that the property  owners were told that'.  I was not  present at the discussion that occurred during the February communication,  which I understand was between deputy secretary Craig Limkin and Mr Berry by  telephone.  I was relaying advice  provided by the deputy secretary as to what had occurred, advice he provided to  me in the Chamber yesterday.   
  I am advised the  actual communication to property owners was that the scheme would be similar to  Rosetta and that no definite position could be provided at that time because an  in-principle agreement had yet to be resolved by the council.  That resolution did not occur until  March.  It would appear that, on that  basis, I have inadvertently provided a more definitive description of the  information provided, that it was consistent with the Rosetta act versus that  it was similar to the Rosetta act. 
There was no  intent on my behalf to misrepresent or overstate the information provided, it  was simply a misinterpretation of the advice provided.  I regret any misunderstanding that resulted  in those statements.  I understand that  the property owners may not be content with the assistance proposal.  However, the Government and the council have  acted in good faith and agreed as to what they would offer by way of a payment  on compassionate grounds proposed through the bill.  The assistance offer is not a negotiated  compensation.   
In summary, Mr  President, the Government and the council have liaised closely with respect to  the proposed compassionate assistance scheme.   I am advised that the Department of Premier and Cabinet has undertaken a  number of discussions with the property owners.   This includes initial discussions with the former director of local  government, Mr Alex Tay; subsequent discussions between current Director of  Local Government, Mr Limkin, and property owners; and, I am advised, mainly  channelled through Mr David Berry, most recently, the phone conversation  in February as referred to in Mr Berry's letter, which informed part of my  submissions yesterday. 
Yesterday, the  member for Rosevears complained there had not been any discussion with the  property owners prior to the bill being introduced.  I am advised that Mr Limkin called most  property owners prior to the bill being introduced to advise them of the  Government's intent to bring this bill before parliament with some urgency  based on a desire to offer financial assistance to five specific property  owners on compassionate grounds, owners whose lives have been severely impacted  by landslide.  |