top of page

Brickmakers Point Landslip Bill 2020 (No 15)

[3.48 p.m.] Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I support the member for Rosevears, only because I am totally confused. I am hearing one thing from the Leader and another from the member from Rosevears, who has apparently spoken to at least four of the five landowners.

Mrs Hiscutt - I read out a letter from last month.

Ms ARMITAGE - With respect, Mr President, the letter the Leader read was previous to them understanding what the offer was.

Mrs Hiscutt - I do not believe so. They indicated in that letter –

Ms ARMITAGE - I ask the Leader: did they know that it was 75 per cent?

Mr PRESIDENT - Can we keep the debate to the reason for the adjournment?

Ms ARMITAGE - It is to do with the reason for the adjournment. That is what I am trying to understand. If we have had a letter read out by the Leader and we have had discussion this morning, I believe, Mr Finch, with four of the five, the other question I ask the Leader is: how is it going to devalue their properties more in leaving it when they are having them valued at a set time, which was previous to the landslip? Whether we debate it now, in 12 months time or three months time, the valuation according to the bill before us is going to be at the same time, so the valuation will not change. I have not spoken to the landowners and I would like them to come back as they did before and speak to us. It is difficult at the moment. Could we have a teleconference with them so we can speak to them - and I am sure that could be arranged, Leader - to hear whether they are happy or not happy. My understanding is the letter read out was previous to them understanding what the offer was. I understand what the Leader is saying about one of the landowners having financial difficulties with COVID-19, but he was also one of the people referred to by Mr Finch as not being happy.

Mrs Hiscutt - While the member is on her feet, I will answer that question about whether they were aware. The people were told it would be consistent with the Rosetta one and that was 75 per cent but the Government did not actually say it would be 75 per cent per se, it said it wouldbe consistent with the Rosetta.

Ms ARMITAGE - Perhaps they did not have an understanding of the percentage. If you told me it was consistent, I may have thought you were going to do it on compassionate grounds, on certain things being consistent, but if I did not know the amount was going to be the same and also, I am not sure whether when the valuation was done with Rosetta -

Mr Finch - It was current.

Ms ARMITAGE - If it was current - well, consistent would be current valuation - how can that be consistent with Rosetta if Rosetta was a current valuation and this is –

Ms Forrest - This would be worse.

Ms ARMITAGE - Yes, and this is actually back. I understand it is worse, member for Murchison. It is worse. It is not the work put into some of the properties and the money spent. When they built them initially, they were at a different stage. A couple of the properties have had substantial development because of the views, to make them really very nice properties, apart from the fact the ground has slipped away from them now.I have really difficulty here, Leader. I understand where you are coming from, and I certainlywant to support the people, but with the information Mr Finch has from having spoken to four of the five landowners today, I cannot see a time imperative with it. It has been going on now for several years.My aim is to get the best outcome for these people as opposed to trying to rush through a bill.

Recent Posts
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page