Speeches

Tuesday 25 March 2020
Hansard of the Legislative Council

BRICKMAKERS POINT LANDSLIP BILL 2020 (No. 15) Second Reading

[3.17 p.m.]
Mr FINCH (Rosevears) - Mr President, I thank the Leader for the briefing and Craig Limkin, who was also there. The people concerned appreciated your contact and the process you offered via the phone. I also thank to Justin Helmich for his consideration yesterday during the briefing. I was going to give qualified support to the bill. Here I am, connected closely to this bill and it came to us yesterday, but it was not delivered to my office. I did not have the bill.

Ms Forrest - I reckon they thought you had written it, so you would have a copy.

Mr FINCH - That's right. I did not have the document to work with and neither did the people affected. All of a sudden, the bill appeared in a bum's rush, as I have referred to others in the past -that is, when things move through quickly.

I am going to withdraw my qualified support. Snippets of what was said downstairs and a report in The Examiner about the householder's support for this are incorrect. I register my concern with some aspects of this bill and I urge the Government to note my concerns and, if possible, to change the bill. I had a discussion about that this morning about a reference for moving an amendment. This is not possible because the West Tamar Council is also involved, so the state Government could not unilaterally make a decision about that.

Ms Rattray - Couldn't they give him a call?

Mr FINCH - That would be far too simple. I would have thought, with this issue coming on, they would have been on stand-by and somebody would have been in a circumstance to say, 'It is on, and if anything untoward occurs, let us see what is being offered or suggested so we can act on this.'.

Ms Forrest - Particularly in the current circumstances, when we are being asked to deal with it with hardly having seen it. You would think the council would be available at short notice, given the current circumstances we are facing and what we are having to deal with.

Mr FINCH - Just in case, they should have been on hand. However, I am not going to quibble because I understand the explanation given to me, and I am in the position to have to accept it.

By the way, the Government is to be commended for taking decisive action on this matter since we in the Legislative Council unanimously passed that motion last August urging the Government to do so. When I moved that motion eight months ago, I documented the hardship and the stress the landslip event at the end of May 2016 was causing the five families at Deviot targeted by this bill

They were mostly here as guests and subsequently held the press conference. They have been in limbo for the best part of four years now, burdened with the anxiety that comes from properties that are virtually worthless and personal lives wracked with uncertainty for the future. Throughout that time, they have not known whether they would be recompensed by government for what the Pennington report documented as clear negligence by state and local government authorities. There was evidence of serious errors by the state in its geological categorisation of the landslip-prone clay soils of the Brickmakers Point area.

As well, the West Tamar Council failed to acknowledge decades of local knowledge about the propensity of the area for landslip. The council then failed to ensure its planning scheme reflected this problem by way of cautionary advice to property owners and developers when issuing building and planning permits and subsequently for people who bought the properties. Nothing to see here, so everything was tickety-boo when people went to buy those properties. In short, the statutory processes of both tiers of government failed to acknowledge landslip at Brickmakers Point as a real risk. But they should have. The Brickmakers Point Landslip Bill seeks to offer affected property owners 75 per cent of the property value at the time of the landslip, which is now nearly four years ago. This is seriously inadequate; it is not enough.

The minister has made it very clear that the Government sees this offer not as compensation - that would imply legal culpability by the Government - instead the offers will be made on compassionate grounds. Clearly, this distinction is the voice of the Government's legal advisors. In the circumstances it is probably the voice of wisdom, because my betting is some of the affected property owners will not accept the offer as it stands in this bill, instead preferring to take the Government and the council to court in pursuit of a more reasonable, equitable outcome. The argument for compassion being the prime motivation with this bill is a very thin argument given that the basis for calculating the proposed offers is not a psychological assessment of the residents but the cold, hard dollar value of their properties. While the Government does dare not talk compensation, we all know what it is - if it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck and it quacks, call it Donald or Daisy, it is a duck. The offer would seek to be compensation for both the emotional impacts of four years of waiting and not knowing if your home would ever be worth anything again, and compensation for the devaluation of their property values caused by government negligence in the geological categorisation of the land and government failure to ensure statutory processes for building and planning approvals reflected the landslip risk.

The proposed offers made on the basis of four-year-old property values are not enough for two main reasons.

First, it was the slow-turning wheels of government that caused this process to be so drawn out, not the actions of the property owners, yet with this bill, it is the property owners who are expected to carry the cost of government delays in completing reports on the landslip and the long drawn-out processes of government task forces convened to weigh up the pros and cons of government moving to correct its own mistakes.

A resident accepting a government offer would also have had the burden of relocation, leaving behind the lives they have built in good faith at this beautiful location on the Tamar River. They have had to find new homes, relocate kids to new schools, incur financial penalties from real estate transactions and so on. The list goes on and on. Given all of this and the delays and extensive anxiety flowed from it, plus the fact that the government's mistaken categorisation of the area is at the root of the dilemma, a figure higher than 75 per cent valuation would be well and truly justified.

Second, while the minister's second reading speech goes to some length to emphasise the bill is consistent with past precedence, in particular, with the recompense provided through the Rosetta Landslip Act 1992, what is proposed in the Brickmakers Point Landslip Bill is in fact well short of the offer legislated in response to the landslip at Rosetta. Under the Rosetta act, government offers to residents were calculated using valuations at the time of offer. In other words, valuations at current market value, and that was without any landslip occurring and they give 75 per cent. But with Brickmakers Point, current market valuations will not be used, but valuations from four years ago.

I live at Deviot; Carole and I paid $269 000 for our house five years ago. We had a bank valuation recently at $380 000, so our property has improved $110 000. That valuation was made sight unseen of the improvements we have made to that cottage, which we think puts the value much higher. That is $110 000 in five years, not the same figures, but you can understand where that might put those houses. People in this climate are coming from the mainland to their safe haven in Tasmania and paying big money for properties at Deviot. The value of all the properties has grown and gone up, so this four years ago is a nonsense.

It is not only inconsistent but it is also very unfair. I urge the Government to amend the bill to make it at the very least truly consistent with the Rosetta Landslip Act 1992 as the minister claimed it to be, but it is not. On the plus side, the bill once legislated will put a much-needed base line into the worth of the affected properties. Currently, these properties are arguably unsaleable, their value is next to zero to their owners. The bill will provide a modicum of comfort to these owners that at least 75 per cent of the value in 2016 is available to be realised with a sale to the Government. The 75 per cent is not enough and four-year valuations would be a travesty, but it is whole lot better than nothing, a sad fact.

The bill is also voluntary; it is opt in, and there is no compulsion for the property owners to request assistance or to accept the result in the offer from the state, which is a good thing. If they choose not to participate, and they have two years to decide that, they are free to do so. Similarly, if they prefer to take legal action instead, they are free to do that. As I mentioned, I would not be surprised if some of the affected property owners decide to take the legal route, as you will hear in a moment.

The inadequacy of the assistance to be offered by the Government under this bill will only encourage this to happen. This is another reason I strongly urge the Government to revise upwards the land valuation from 75 per cent to closer to a 100 per cent, while at the same time using today's real estate values, not four-year-old values, as the benchmark for offers.

Finally, I hope lessons have been learnt from this whole episode, notably that the subdivision at Brickmakers Point should never have been allowed. Government, both state and local, must in future be super vigilant with the geological mapping and categorisation of land throughout Tasmania. The consequences of not getting it right are very significant both for Tasmanian taxpayers and for the lives of property owners who inherit the legacy of any substandard geological assessments that might occur in the future.

As I say, because of the haste with which this bill has been brought through the House, I have had to have a quick ring around to speak to as many of the people affected as I could, to get them to send me their thoughts on how they view what has now occurred. That is, except for the couple who have gone to New Zealand; I do not have their contact details. This is from Nic Daking; part of his house is still standing, but most of it went down the hill. To say he and the family are heartbroken is an understatement because this was their dream home. They had a new baby on the way, already had two children, and this was hugely traumatic for a person who was very busy in the business world. He and his family suffered very badly and his wife is furious –

Hi Kerry,
Putting aside the very serious situation we are all dealing with currently, we have been living with this nightmare for 4 long years and what has been passed today will not end the nightmare, in fact it has had the opposite effect. In accepting this bill of 75% of valuation before the landslide occurred we would actually be placing ourselves in a worst financial situation than we are today, now that may sound hard to believe but it is the truth. I can provide detailed information that clearly shows this dire situation we have been placed in. We are sick and tired of the constant reference to the Rosetta Landslide, now with Rosetta the landowners were paid out in around 1 year I’m lead to believe, there was also absolute no knowledge and more importantly no liability with local or state government due to any unbelievable number of mistakes that lead to the Rosetta landowners having their families being placed in danger both physically, emotionally and financially. Now Rossetta did not have a Derek Pennington Report, an expert in this field that investigated what had occurred and how it happened and why landowners were ultimately left in this position. So to continue to refer to Rossetta when discussing Deviot is simply irrelevant because if it was then why do we Deviot landowners have had to wait 4 years? Why wait 4 years with an expert report clearly stating what has happened and who is at fault, it’s not us the property owners. I could go on and on but I won’t as I mentioned before today is just a reminder of the nightmare we have had for 4 years and now we look forward to that continuing. I would like to ask the West Tamar Council, when the landslip event occurred at exactly the same time the mineshaft opening at their Beaconsfield Mine collapsed the same day our house started to disintegrate, did the Council accept 75% of the land valuation prior to the damage and hand the land over the Crown or did they organise a nearly $2m grant from the State and Federal Govt? The Council and the State Govt allowed my family and our neighbours to be placed in this position in full knowledge of the dangers, they ask us to go waive any legal liability and claimes against them and continue living the nightmare. This is Deviot, not Rosetta, read your report that you commissioned then ask yourself what would you do? Because I know what we are going to do.

He sent another message to say -

The minister has a very skewed idea of consultation. We had one meeting in November and were asked what our expectations were.

Ms Forrest - Is he suggesting there is a council or government liability?

Mr FINCH - Both.

Ms Forrest - In the briefing we were told they did not believe there was any government liability.

Mr FINCH - No, absolutely. That is what you are hearing; well, that will be tested. The advisers and the minister say, 'We have no legal liability.'. We will see.

This is from Chris Wells -

Unfortunately as it stands the current offer of assistance is not one we could possibly consider. Whilst we understand the position that has been taken, we are very disappointed and feel that it fails to take into account the individual circumstances.

We have spent (ignoring interest) approximately $600,000 on the property, $150 000 of which was purely in attempt to save the house structure.

An offer of 75% may only total $250 000? which wouldn't cover our debts on the property.

Remember that for us the slip activated in 2013.

They had movement earlier -

Where would we be if we had the opportunity to spend that $150 000 and 3 to 4 years on the development of the property? We would have completion of the residence, landscaping, fencing and paved driveway. We expected that the market value of the property would be at least $600 000 by this time.

This a purely our financial point of view. The toll on a health from the stress and physical hardship attempting to save our house we are unable to quantify.

It simply isn't a fair offer when we are not at fault.

David and Denise Berry -

We're disappointed with the Bill's proposed offer ... particularly disappointed that it does not offer parity with offers under the Rosetta Landslip Act 1992 (4-yr-old values vs current market value).

We're in a very tight corner and feeling a bit like having been worn down by the system:

In our 70s and weary after 4 anxious years;

Desperate for a solution to having our superannuation investment having gone belly up, through no fault of our own.

75% is too low and parity with Rosetta valuations should be a given.

Nigel Lazenby and Clare Freshwater, the Lazenbys -

This is a cold hearted , insensitive offer to people who have been traumatised for a number of years ;living in fear of the loss of their property and lives.

A world leading Geotechnical engineer has stressed there is the potential for a catastrophic event here.

Can you imagine the fear and stress that this has puts on the individuals and their family relationships over such a long period of time?

We believe that a fair offer would be current realestate value of the properties as there has been a major increase in real estate values in Deviot in the last few years.

This is not our fault!
From our perspective, this a a huge loss of belief and trust in the system of responsible government bodies.

Why should we be forced to continue to suffer and lose?
Our next move (should we be unable to resolve this situation), is class action.

In light of these testimonials and the fact this bill is not time-sensitive and has been given the bum's rush to get through here, Mr President, I move -

That the debate stands adjourned.

[3.41 p.m.]
Mrs HISCUTT (Montgomery - Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council) - Mr President, I would like to speak against the adjournment.

Talking to my advisers and hearing what the member for Rosevears is saying, there is a contradiction. I would like to put on the record quite a lot of information for members to make up their minds as to whether we adjourn this debate or continue. I am a little confused at the minute.

I have a fair bit of information here and I also have a letter. I might start with this letter from Mr Berry because the member for Rosevears had quoted a letter from Mr Berry. He says -

Mr Finch - When was this please?

Mrs HISCUTT - Dated, I cannot find a date on this but when I finish reading it, you -

Mr Finch - Mine was this morning.

Mrs HISCUTT - This was about a month ago when the bill was being finalised. Mr Berry may have changed his mind. Let me read the letter -

Dear Minister

Brickmakers Point Landslip

I write on behalf of Deviot Road property owners worst affected by the 2016 Brickmakers Point landslip. Messrs Crisp and Rani Wells, Nigel and Claire Lazenby, Nick and Nikki Dakin, Russell and Tessa Leigh, and ourselves, David and Denise Berry.

For almost four years of uncertainty we are now most anxious for resolution of our situation. Properties now are very little market value, each constructed on the false premise that the location was not prone to landslip as per state government geological mapping overlays operating at the time.
The Pennington report of last year established that this was a serious error. It provided numerous examples of why the Government's geotechnical classification for Brickmakers Point should have highlighted the areas' landslip propensity, not ignore it.

At the latest of the regular meetings of the above property owners, which was Sunday, 2 February 2020, also attended by members for Rosevears, Mr Kerry Finch, MLC, and residents' representatives to the Government, WTC Landslip Committee, Trevor Grant, we considered information provided to me earlier that day by Deputy Secretary to the Department of Local Government, Mr Craig Limkin.

We wish to acknowledge the forthright manner of Mr Limkin's update on progress. Being kept informed with accurate, timely information, is so helpful in living with such a stressful situation. We were particularly pleased to learn the Government's Brickmakers Point Landslip Working Group, officiated by Messrs Limpkin and Tay from your Department, has completed its work and the presentation to state Parliament by yourself of the resultant submission is imminent. Perhaps before the end of the month, February.

We ask that we are kept informed of progress with Cabinet's deliberations and again express our thanks for the efforts thus far by yourself and other ministers, notably Premier and Treasurer, Peter Gutwein MP, as well as WTC's General Manager, Rolfe Voss, and other council staff.

Also, we want to advise that despite being often approach by media for comment,
and encouraged from some quarters to pursue recompense from legal avenues, our group has thus far resolved not to pursue either option. The developments as outlined by Mr Limpkin last week have reassured us in maintaining our current position.

Yours faithfully,
David Berry
654 Deviot Road, Deviot

I find it hard to put that with what is happening here. I am a bit confused. Having said that, it is what it is.

Mr Finch - I encouraged that letter to be written because it was a communication by the people involved, to the Government and to the council, of the feelings of the meeting and trying to be as conciliatory and understanding as they possibly could be, with no volatility mentioned there.

Mrs HISCUTT - There was a meeting in February, and it is only March now, so it has gone from left field to right field to out of field. I do not really understand why this has happened.

I would like to go through some reasons I thought we should pursue this bill. Why is the Government offering to purchase these properties at 75 per cent of the value, why not 100 per cent? This is one of the things the member for Rosevears mentioned.

Mr Gaffney - Wasn't it on the adjournment?

Mrs HISCUTT - I am trying to suggest why we should not be adjourning, and I want to give you the reasons.

Mr PRESIDENT - If you keep pretty tight to that, we should be all right.

Mrs HISCUTT - In light of the letter I read out and what has been read by the member for Rosevears, I am a little bit confused. The Government's opinion is that this is the best way to help these people. We dispute the suggestion that a quick ring around was done because that is not the case -

Mr Finch - Sorry, Leader, I missed that - a quick ring-around, what was that?

Mrs HISCUTT - You mentioned that a quick ring around was done by the department, but I have notes here, which I could read in, a process of consultation has happened. There was no quick ring around.

I believe we should proceed with this legislation because this is the outcome the residents indicated to the Government that they desire. We talk about the valuations of their house; if we leave it any longer under the current circumstances, their homes may be devalued -

Ms Forrest - The evaluation is set in the past anyway, isn’t it?

Mr PRESIDENT - We should not need to enter into a debate on this.

Mrs HISCUTT - I urge members to proceed with this bill because, if these people's homes are devalued, when it is done they could get less than what they were getting in 2016. COVID-19 is an unprecedented problem. It has been indicated to Government that these people want this done and there are families who are desperate, one with a business that has gone broke because of the situation.

Members, I urge you not to adjourn the debate but to pursue it.

[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 for 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, by 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 would be consistent with 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 real difficulty here, Leader. I understand where you are coming from, and I certainly want 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.

[3.52 p.m.]
Ms LOVELL (Rumney) - Mr President, at this stage, I too am inclined to support the member for Rosevears' move to adjourn. I appreciate the Leader has read in a letter received from Mr Berry, but, as other members have pointed out, that letter is a month old. We have heard that, at that time, that gentleman and those residents were told this process would be consistent with the Rosetta process. We are hearing now from Mr Finch that the process and their understanding of it is actually quite different as to how it is played out in reality.

I am also reluctant to rely on a letter that is a month old. I am concerned that when Mr Berry reads or hears this debate - he may well be listening - he may feel misrepresented by that letter being read in, considering the passage of time since then, the additional information that has come to light since then and the further communication he has had with the member for Rosevears.

I do not appreciate the effort to counter a letter he has written today with a letter he wrote a month ago and to expect us to accept that over this much more recent communication.

In light of all those facts and the discussion we are having now, I will support the member for Rosevears.

Mrs Hiscutt - While the member is on feet, it is important this goes onto Hansard. The Rosetta legislation at section 9(2) says -

An offer to purchase property in accordance with section 8 is to provide -

(a) that the purchase price is to be 75 per cent of the assessed value of the property at the date of the offer …

Mr GAFFNEY - Point of order. It is on the adjournment, it is not part -

Mr PRESIDENT - Yes, I was about to make that ruling. On the adjournment, each person gets one speak on why we should or should not adjourn, and there is no right of reply to any parties, so we cannot enter a debate across the Chamber when the question before members is the debate stand adjourned.

I ask members to rise, make their contribution, sit down and we will take the vote. It is not to go into a second reading debate.

Ms LOVELL - Thank you, Mr President. As I make my contribution on the adjournment, I will be supporting the member for Rosevears.

[3.55 p.m.]
Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, I would like to make a few points when deciding whether I support an adjournment regarding the letter read out by the Leader.

I listened carefully and what I can glean, without a copy of it or of the Hansard to confirm it, is that the letter was written in early February following a meeting in early February, and we are nearly at the end of March. That letter said that the legislation was expected by the end of February. That may have been the resident's expectation; I do not know if that was the reality. Their clear understanding was that the legislation was expected at the end of February. From the letters the member for Rosevears read out, it seems they had not seen the legislation or even a draft of it. Comments in their letter were generally supportive of a process to move forward with legislation based on the Rosetta Landslip Act that facilitated that, but it is a bit hard to unequivocally agree with something until you see the legislation, which pushes me toward the member for Rosevears' point.

Mrs Hiscutt - Is that in line with what I read out about the Rosetta landslip being 75 percent?

Ms FORREST - No, that is irrelevant to my points. In his contribution prior to the adjournment motion, the member for Rosevears mentioned that technical assessments were done that were wrong and that there is this whole question of liability. He may have a view that some of these landowners may test it in court. That remains an option now and is lengthy, costly, all of those sorts of things. I see this as moving toward finding a conciliation point which people can opt into for a compassionate payment.

It seems as if there is a lot of confusion. I was not sure from the member's motion to adjourn the debate whether he was intending it to sit there and give us more time to consult with the landowners and to fully understand legislation, or whether he was proposing an amendment. He mentioned an amendment in his second reading contribution but there was no mention of that when he moved that the debate stand adjourned. Is an amendment in the wind that we could see today and maybe progress tomorrow? I am uncertain as to how to proceed with this. I hear the family wants it done, but are they happy with this option? That it is opt in and all those things.

Do we hold up support for business and not give support to the people who have business problems? I understand from the Leader that they were COVID-19-related problems and there is support for that in a separate bucket of money. We should not be basing the passage of this legislation or otherwise, now or later, on their business dealings when there is support for businesses impacted by COVID-19 in another bucket. That would be a reason to proceed with it, in my mind. I do not know, Mr President.

[3.58 p.m.]
Mr VALENTINE (Hobart) - Mr President, when we make decisions, members usually have exactly the same information available to them and they have to make a decision as to which way they will go in relation to the facts before them.

I am hearing that there is conflicting information, especially relating to the people who might be the beneficiaries of this. For that reason alone, an adjournment is required. I do not believe it is exactly the same as the Rosetta landslip; we can go into that but not in an adjournment debate. I am concerned that we have conflicting information. We need to have the same information when we are making decisions in this House. I support the adjournment.

[3.59 p.m.]
Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, I would like to make a few points when deciding whether I support an adjournment regarding the letter read out by the Leader.

Mrs Hiscutt - Is that in line with what I read out about the Rosetta landslip being 75 percent?

[3.59 p.m.]
Ms RATTRAY (McIntyre) - Mr President, I support the member's intention to bring forward an amendment. He said in his second reading contribution that he could not do that because the Government could not agree to an amendment, because it needed to be able to discuss that with the West Tamar Council and that was not possible. For that reason alone, it would be prudent to support an adjournment at this time. The Government can go back to the council and say that the people do not agree with this, and see if there is any movement. If there is not, we will deal with it at a later time when we are back in this place. I agree that those four of the five landowners do not believe it is as time-sensitive as it possibly was. I support the adjournment.

[4.00 p.m.]
Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I congratulate the Government for trying to do what it thinks is the right thing, although I support the adjournment. The gap is between the understanding of the Government and the five landowners on what this legislation is about.

I do not agree with members who have suggested we need to make a decision. I think the Government needs to go back to the landowners and the council, work through the bill and come back with an amended bill. We can then debate a bill that is in front of us, whether we agree with either of the three parties on this.

An adjournment is necessary. I agree with the member for Murchison that the COVID-19 situation can be dealt with. It should not impact on this legislation and we need to stick to this. Once the Government has discussed this with all concerned parties, it can come back with this exact same bill knowing that the parties can make a presentation to us and we will all receive the same information so that we are playing on a level field. I support the adjournment.

[4.02 p.m.]
Mr DEAN (Windermere) - Mr President, I understand why the member is wired up. My issue in deciding whether to support the adjournment is that I was told these people were made aware of the Rosetta position of 75 per cent. Were they made aware at the same time that the valuations of their properties would be done differently?

Mr PRESIDENT - You can only ask that rhetorically.

Mr DEAN - That is right, rhetorically. Were they, because we are told they were done on current valuation in Rosetta? Their properties are being done on the 2016 valuation and we know very well that there has been a significant change in property valuations between 2016 and now.

I am inclined to support the application for this matter to be further adjourned. What is the adjournment for? What is to be done in the meantime that cannot be done now by way of amendment? The member for McIntyre has explained that to some degree, that there is a need to go back to the council and involve them in the process.

There is clearly confusion. I am not disputing anything the Government or the department has said in the briefings. I have no reason to do so. Some issues have been raised that do not quite gel and an adjournment is necessary. If an adjournment occurs, I am not sure it could be done by tomorrow. We are programmed to sit tomorrow. I do not know whether any of that work could be done between now and then. I agree this matter should be sorted quickly. When I am considering this adjournment, how long might it be put off? Will that impact some of these people who want the moneys they are entitled to and so on?

Ms Rattray - Obviously not.

Mr DEAN - It would seem not. It has been a long time and they have had to go on with it for a long time. I support the amendment in all the circumstances
The Council divided -

AYES (10)	NOES (2)
Ms Armitage	Mr Armstrong
Mr Dean	Mrs Hiscutt (Teller)
Mr Finch
Ms Forrest
Mr Gaffney
Ms Lovell (Teller)
Ms Rattray
Mr Valentine
Ms Webb
Mr Willie

Motion agreed to.

Debate adjourned.