C SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Hon. Grant Woodhams Member for Moore
6 July 2009
The Hon L W Roberts-Smith RFD QC Commissioner Corruption and Crime Commission 186 St Georges Terrace PERTH WA 6000
Dear Commissioner
ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE HON COLINBARNET T, MLA AND THE HON MICHELLE ROBERTS, MLA
I refer to your letter dated 29 June 2009 in relationto allegations concerning the Hon. Colin Barnett, MLA and the Hon Michelle Roberts, MLA.
I have noted your advice that the Corruption and CrimeCommission ("the Commission") has formed the view that the allegationsare of serious misconduct.I agreeith your assessment that the allegations could not be investigated bythe Commission without breaching parliamentary privilege.
You indicate that the Commission is disclosing the complaintto me under section 152 (4) (d) of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003for my information and consideration of any possible further action by the Procedure and Privileges Committee.In my view, that provision only allows disclosure to either House ofParliament or to the Joint Standing Committee on the Corruption and Crime Commission, andconsequently it would not be appropriate for me to consider forwarding thematter to the Procedure and Privileges Committee. However I certainly can and will tableyour correspondence in the House, in accordance with the section, when the Legislative Assemblyresumes its sittings on 11 August 2009. It will then be a matter for the House to decide whataction may be necessary.
Please feel free to contact me if you need further information.
Yours sincerely
HON GRANT WOODHAMS, MLA SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
PAARLIAMENT HOUSE. PERTH. VIES I I,G1 i AIL', i RA , ()(OO Telephone: (-1-61 8) 9222 7222 Facsimile: (+61 8) 9222 7818 4 E SPEAKER
CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSIO 3 JUN 7009
Fi .eivEuAT.7",
Our Ref 00706/1wrs
29 June 2009
Hon. Grant Woodhams MLA Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House Harvest Terrace PERTH WA 6000
Dear Mr Speaker ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE HON COLIN BARNETT, MLA AND THE HON MICHELLE ROBERTS, MLA
I refer to a complaint received by the Corruption and Crime Commission (lithe Commission") in which itis alleged that the Hon Colin Barnett MLA, engaged in misconduct.It is alleged that on 30 August 2007 Mr Barnett raised a grievance in the Legislative Assembly inrelation to the "Cliffe" a residential property located in Peppermint Grove, and its possible removal from the Heritage Register. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr Barnett wanted to assist the owner of the Cliffe, Mr Mark Creasy, in order to benefit his son, Mr Russell Barnett, who is said to have business links to Mr Creasy.
It is also alleged that the Heritage Council consistently advised the then Minister, the Hon Michelle Roberts MLA, against removing the property from the Heritage Register, but Ms Roberts failed to pass on this advice or make it available to members of both the Legislative Assembly and Council.It is alleged that Ms Roberts instead provided her parliamentary colleagues with information she knew to be false.
The Commission has now had an opportunity to assess the allegations raised pursuant to section 22 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 ("the Act") and has formed the view that the allegations raised against Mr Barnett and Ms Roberts are of serious misconduct.
However, itis clear that the allegations centre crucially on what Mr Barnett and Ms Roberts said in the Parliament, both as to the truth or accuracy of it and their motivation for saying what they did. Those matters are protected by parliamentary privilege.Specifically, the allegations cannot be investigated without impeaching or calling into question what was said in the Parliament by Mr Barnett and Ms Roberts. If done by the Commission, that would constitute a breach of article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 (UK), imported into the privileges of the Parliamentary of Western Australia by section 1 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891 (WA).
A478482 PO Box 7667 Cloisters Square PERTH, WA 6850 Ground Floor, 186 St Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6000 Telephone: 08 92154888 Facsimile: 08 92154884 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ccc.wa.gov,au Accordingly, as the Commission cannot investigate these allegations without breaching parliamentary privilege, it has decided pursuant to section 33(1)(d) of the Act to take no further action.
However, given the nature of the allegations the Commission has decided pursuant to section 152(4)(d) to disclose to you a copy of the complaint for your information and consideration of any possible further action by the Privileges Committee.
I accordingly enclose herewith a copy of:
(a) letter from Mr Brian Waldron to Corruption and Crime Commission dated 31 March 2009 (with attachments); and (b) letter from Mr Brian Waldron to Corruption and Crime Commission dated 15 April 2009 (with attachments).
Yours sincerely
The Hon L W Roberts-Smith RFD QC COMMISSIONER
End
2 2 RECEIVED -1 APR2009 Hon Len Roberts-Smith, QC Corruption & Corruption and Crime Commissionof WA Crime Commission PO Box 7667 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6850
Sydney, Tuesday 31"March 2009 The removal of the Cliffe from the WA Register ofHeritage Places Dear Mr Roberts-Smith,
I write to you hoping you can undertake an investigateinto the removal of the Cliffe the Register of Heritage Places. from
The Cliffe, at 25 Bindaring Parade, Peppermint Grove,is widely recognisedas a significant Western Australian building of the late colonial period.It was designed by the famous architect Talbot Hobbs for Neil McNeil, the timber baron,and completed in 1898. The building retains the integrity of its initial design. Itwas classified by the National Trust 1984, included on the Register of in the National Estate in1992, listed on the WA the Heritage Places Estate Register of in 1995, and the PeppermintGrove Heritage Inventory in In his 1983 book 1999. on Peppermint Grove, the historianRobert Pascoe, says:
"Perhaps his most impressive local creation, however,was Neil McNeil's The Cliffe. The show-piece of the local timber industry, itwas sited on Devil's Elbow to take full advantage of theriver. Built about 1898,it is a 30-room honeycomb of jarrah, finished off withimported wrought-ironrailing...."
In 1995 the property was purchased by Mark and SharonCreasy from the previous Harold and Athel McComb. owners In the same year the Creasyspurchased another house in Mosman Park where they have lived ever since. The Cliffe hasnever been maintained by the Creasys. In fact, it is clear that Mark Creasy hasengaged in a program of neglect' in order to degrade 'demolition by the building and to assisthim in having the heritage removed from the property. protection
In May 2008, that ambitionwas realised when the Parliament of WA voted in favour ofa motion to remove the Cliffe fromthe Heritage Register.
This is all simply a matter of governance. However the circumstancessurrounding that vote become more concerning when we learn, as we did in Decernber2008, that the Heritage Council had consistently advised the then Minister, MichelleRoberts, against this action.
42 Brougham Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 bnan.waldrongmet net,au Phone (02) 8354 1449 NN Mobile 0411 671 064
dad 68718 That expert advice was not made available inany form to members of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Councilvoting on the matter.
In public, the Government argued that the community neededto free themselves from the Cliffe because the owner had threatened to force theState Government to purchasethe Cliffe for $20 million. The threat was pure fantasy, designed toprepare the people of WA for the planned action to introducethe motion for de-listinginto the Parliament.
We now know the heritage experts advised that Creasy's proposed legalaction was sure to fail. Indeed Creasy did not actively pursue it. Clearly, it was a hollow threat,a cardboard sword wrapped in tinfoil that he couldwave in the sunlight enabling Impressionable members of parliament to exclaim thatthe sword, and the threat,was real.
Unbelievably, it worked. The government went to the parliamentwith the argument that; 1) the building was in such a poor state of repair, 2) theowner could force the State to purchase the property at 'market' rates and 3) that the only sensiblething to do was to remove it from the Heritage Register lest theState incur a $20 million liability.
The government did not inform members of parliament aboutalternative responses to Creasy's cardboard threat.
The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 foresees the possibilitythat places of heritage significance may be jeopardised by neglect. Section 73 makes provision for thecompulsory acquisition of property if such a place is being "deliberately allowedto fall into disrepair for the purpose of justifying its demolition and redevelopment..."In such a case, any cost of restoration of the property can be deducted from any compensationthe State chooses to pay. The terms of this compulsory acquisition is set by the State and would thereforebe the most favourable to the community,not dictated by theowner (as they are in the threatened action by Creasy).
Despite their awareness of the building's profound "dilapidation", neitherthe proposer of the motion to delist, Colin BarnettMLA for Cottesloe,nor the then Minister make any reference to the statutory remedy.
It defies belief that the action of the member for Cottesloe and theclose [active] collusion in this matter by the then minister for Heritage (Michelle Roberts) is simplyincompetent governance. The minister actively ignored the advice of the Heritage Council andthe obvious provisions of the Heritage of Western Australia Act1990 and gave more weightto the hyperbolic claims of the owner of the property than those ofthe people of Western Australia. She withheld expert information from her parliamentary colleaguesand provided them instead with information she knew to be false. Theseare not acts of mere incompetence: they are designed to mislead.
42 Brougham Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 bean waldronginet netau Phone (02) 8354 1449 Mobile 0411 671 064 Page3
I don't know how such a thing could have happened. Whywould parliamentarians compromise themselves by failing to properly discharge theirresponsibilities? Is therea financial reward somewhere,or a promise made or owed?
We know that Mark Creasy is a significant donor to the LiberalParty in WA. Senator Andrew Murray on his website on political donations shows Creasyas one of the most generous non-corporate donors to the Liberal Party. We also know from theAustralian Electoral Commission web site that Creasy has also donated considerablesums to the Labor Party. don't know how influential these I donations can be in swayingthe views of politicians, but can't believe that such I an obvious misuse of ministerialpowers can continue to go uninvestigated by the Corruption and Crime Commission, Onlyyour commission has the investigative powers to determine whether or not this extraordinaryabuse of statutory procedure is corrupt.
Normal parliamentary process should be able to uncover thetruth of this matter, but inthe current environment it is difficult to find anyone in the parliament who can takethis matter up with those responsible. The previous ministercan no longer be questioned on the floor of the Legislative Assembly because of the change of governmentwhich occurred between the Cliffe being delisted and the Heritage Council's advice becoming public.Ministers of the present government actively promoted the de-listing of the Cliffe andwere equally at fault in ignoring the precise application of Section 73 of the Heritage ofWestern Australia Act 1990 to the circumstances.
The two-party system only workseffectively if the party in oppositionis sincere in examining the actions of the party in government. When both the major partiesjoin forces as they have in the delisting of the Cliffe, when both are equally guilty ofpromoting Mark Creasy's fallacious threat, whenboth persist in ignoring section73 of the Act and the publicly funded advice of the Heritage Council's experts, the system hasbroken down and the community canno longer have any faith in the objectivityof its representatives.
I only have access to the information available to the public.I have enclosed a copy of the Hansard record of the debates on the motion to remove the Cliffe fromthe Heritage Register in May 2008 and the Heritage Council advice from November2007. This Heritage Council advice only became public in December 2008, when The Cliffe'sremoval from the Register was a fait accompli.
It is vital that you undertake this investigation quickly. The Cliffe iscurrently in grave risk of being demolished. Once it was removed from the Heritage Register,Mark Creasy quickly applied for a permit to demolish the house. Despite its inclusionon the Shire's own heritage inventory, the Shire of Peppermint Grove gave in-principle support for demolition.We currently await the report of a committee formed to consider "the feasibilityof preserving The Cliffe". The committee's reluctanceto consider recommending that the
42Brougham Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 bean waldron @nnet.netau Phone(02) 8354 1449 Mobile.0411 671 064 State acquire the building under the provisions of section 73 suggests that "feasibility"may be a hard test to meet. That committee is due to report to the Shire Councilin May 2009.
If any prima-face evidence is uncoveredin your investigation, I trust thatyou will seek an immediate injunction to preventany demolition before your enquiry is complete.
I look forward to hearing fromyou.
Yours sincerely
Briadr Waldron
42 Brougham Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 bnartwaldron©tinetnet au Phone (02) 8354 1449 Mobile 0411 671 064 Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 14 May2008] p30061)-3008a Mr Colin Barnett; Mrs MichelleRoberts
THE CLIFFE REMOVAL FROM REGISTEROF HERITAGE PLACES Motion MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloc)[4.04 pm]: I move That this house resolves, pursuant to section 54(7) of the Heritageof Western Australia Act the property knownas The Cliffe, which was permanently 1990, that on 19 July 2005, notice of which entered into the Register of HeritagePlaces appears in the Government Gazette of 29July 2005 at page 3365, should be removed from the Registerof Heritage Places. I spoke some timeago through a grievance debate on the issue of The Cliffe and I donot propose to waste the time of the house by going throughthat again, although I will take the circumstances. two or three minutes to remindmembers of The Cliffe is a rambling timber home that was built intwo stages between 1894 and 1898 by McNeil. It was built as a display an engineer, Neil home to demonstrate that timberhouses could be built in Peppermint the time Peppermint Grove hadplaced a ban on building with Grove. At timber. McNeil wasa timber merchant and obviously had an interest in displayingthe merits of timber housing. The house has a long history.Pan of the property was subdivided in 1915 tocreate 20 lots, which were sold. The property was subsequently sold by Neil McNeil's wife following his death.It was then owned by an industrialist, Sir Lance Brisbane.In 1962 the property was further subdivided into sixlots by a group called Cotswold then owned the house. Sharon and Investments. A Dr Harold McComb Mark Creasy purchased the housefor $2.7 million in 1995 and current owners of the house;I think the house is in the they are the name of Sharon Creasy. At the timethe Creasys purchased the house therewas no mention of any municipal or state heritage listing of the property.They bought the house believing therewas no heritage issue, with the intention of demolishing the house anddeveloping their home on that site. It has hada long history, covering successive governments and ministers, and I think history that now needsto be brought to a conclusion, Without it is a going through this again, itwas the Creasys' intention to develop theproperty, and they would still like to do that. existing timber structure. That would require the demolitionof the
Shortly after the Creasys purchasedthe house,the. Heritage Council took an interest iuthe property, and it was placed on the heritage liston an interim basis. That situation has continued many disputes and some nine for quite some time. In 2004,after years after the Creasys purchased the site, theHeritage Council placed the house on permanent heritage registration. Therehave been legal disputes and actions the Creasys estimate that they through the Supreme Court, and have spent something like $225000 in legal costs on this the government and to the property. In fairness to Creasys, every effort has been madeto find a perfect solution, if Investigations were made into whether one could be found. the house could be relocated.That is effectively impractical, bottom line is thatno-one particularly wants it; certainly and the not the local governments of thearea. The cost of restoring the properly has beenestimated at $2.8 million, People might say that the state couldpurchase the property. Again, that has been lookedat over the years, but I do not think restoration or purchase. There anyone could justify the expense of are many far more deserving and important heritageissues in Western Australia, bearing in mind that this isa private property and a privately owned has visited the house on house. The Minister for Housing andWorks two occasions and she mightagree with me that it is basically uninhabitable moment. The house was no doubt attractive at the in its former glory days. Froma distance it can certainly look attractive, but if one walks through iftoday, it is clearly dilapidated; ceilings have fallen down and the floorsare hopelessly uneven. Interestingly, itwas built as a display home. The first time expected it to be full of magnificent I walked inside the house I ornate fireplaces and wooden panels. It is has been. not. It is basically bare and always
Mr J.C. Kobelke: Roughly whatarea of land is involved? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I think there are several titleson the property. There is an extended valuable piece of real estate. I area of land. It is a could not guess at the full marketvalue of the site. If it would be worth many millions of dollars. were unencumbered, it Mrs M.H. Roberts: It was subdivided down to abouta twentieth of the original size. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Thereare still parts of the old stable network. I would describe itas an interesting old property. I do not, as a layperson, considerit to have great heritage value. It is a private property and itis never going to be available to the public.The Creasys are not interested in worth it to do so. trying to restore it as it isnot practical or
In summary, the housewas placed on the heritage list after it was purchased by the currentowners. It is an interesting, but not exceptional,property. It is a private house, It is in extremely poor condition, requiringat least $2.8 million to make it safe,let alone habitable. The state quite correctly is not interestedin purchasing the Extract fromHansard [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 14 May2008) p3006b-3008a Mr Cohn Barnett; Mrs MichelleRoberts propertyI do not think anyone could justify thatnor is the state able to relocatethe house. Indeed, there have been private attempts to see whether thatis viable and, despite good intentions, home that is open to the public, it is it has come to nothing. It isnot a not visible from the street, and it isvery hard to find a public benefitor use for this building. It is certainlynot worth the millions of dollars that would be involved inany attempt to relocate or restore it. Members will agree that thereare far more significant and worthy heritage Australia than this house. The causes in Western owners have no intention of restoring the buildingin any way. I thank the Minister for Housing and Works for visiting the site. Iknow it would be a precedentto have a site removed from the heritage list andwould require a resolution of both houses of Parliament before thatcould happen. I commend the minister andothers who have looked at it. If the there will be some anguish house is struck from the heritage list, amongst proponents and supporters ofheritage properties, butwe have to be sensible about these issues. Although I havesupported other heritage projects in my electorate and continue to doso, in good conscience I do not think thisis worthy of support. I think the what is now a dilapidated and essentially cost is way beyond the meritor value of broken down, old wooden house inPeppermint Grove. MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland Minister for Housing and Works)[4.12 pm]: I thank the memberfor Cottesloe for moving this motion. Themember first raised this issue with had an impression prior to looking me about a year ago. I too, like him, through this house that I was really goingto see something spectacular and something that I hoped would be inbetter condition. I did hope, when I first looked at this issue, thatwe could find a solution. People have been tryingto find a solution to this situation for for a very long time. some 12 years now. It has goneon
Without doubt, the owners of thisproperty are people of means. Advice from more than $200 000 to look at how they lawyers so far has cost theowners can deal with the heritage issues, I understandthey have also been quite amenable to assisting financially with therelocation of the house to other sites, or to a neighbouring shire, or indeed anywhere. I preferably within the local shire know through the member forCottesloe that the owners have indicated a preparedness topay a considerable amount of money to have the house relocated and restoredat another site. The restoration cost, mindyou, at its existing site has been costed at $2.8 amount of money, The owners too, in order million; a considerable to get out of this protracted issue,offered to sell the property to the slate. It is not something that I could justify spendingmoney on as Minister for Heritage. As the Cottesloe.has suggested, thereare much more significant priorities. Member for If I can just put matters in context, each year as Minister for HeritageI administer a fund of heritage grants. Those grants some $1 million for are shared between local government authoritiesand individuals right throughout the state of Western Australia. Theexpenditure of a lot of money On occasions, our government, and on one individual property very rarely happens. no doubt previous governments, has singledout some particularly significant buildings and made grants outsidethat million-dollar grant program. I cite by way of example thegrants that were given for work on St George's Cathedral,St Mary's Cathedral and .I think in Geraldton was another project also St Patrick's. Maley's Bridge that received a one-off grant. Fromtime to time government does particularly worthwhile consider the purposes of such grants. That is usually wherethere is some contribution by local government, federal government and sometimes a fundraising appeal as well. The house inquestion is not one of the iconic heritage buildings inWestern Australia and I do not think that to assist in the relocation of this house. we could justify spending publicmoney The owners have made it quite clearthat they do not intend to restore it, and indeed that was not thereason they bought the building. Looking throughthe history of the house, can see why the Creasys are aggrieved one sees that a number of things haveoccurred. I at the position they have found themselvesin. As the member for Cottesloe pointed out, this propertywas not heritage listed when they purchased it. purchased the property, it I understand that when they was not even on the municipal inventory,so they bought it for the purpose of redeveloping the site to a family home. I think Mr Creasy's mothermay have an adjoining propertyor a property in the immediate vicinity.'Theyhave opposed the heritage listing of The Cliffe but the matter hasgone on for a number of years. They have been involvedin litigation with the state. There solicitors to government has been a lot of advice fromstate over the years about this. Indeed,Ithink prior to my suggesting amenable to considering removing The that I would be Cliffe from the Register of HeritagePlaces, the Creasys hada court action listed in the Supreme Court thatthey were intending to proceed with. might be, I am not sure, but legal advice What the result of that litigation can be obtained both ways. It is not reallymy intention to get into that. As the member for Cottesloe suggested,this issue might be a precedent. Itis not every day that placesare removed from the heritage register. 1 think1 have probably added the year or so that I have been a couple of hundred places to the registerin Minister for Heritage. This will be thefirst occasion on whichwe have moved to take something off the register. It isnot a step that I have taken lightly. detail, I was expecting to form I did look through the house insome a contrary viewthat this was a place that shouldbe conserved or that make other arrangements for. I have we should now satisfied myself that that is not practical inthe circumstances and that, on balance, this is a place that should be removedfrom the heritage register.
[21 Extract from Hansa [ASSEMBLY - Wednesday, 14May 2008] p30066-3008a Mr Colin Damen; Mrs MichelleRoberts
As a result of forming that view,last year I caused a notice to be placed in the GovernmentGozene, which know the member for Cottesloe isaware of. It was published in the Government 2007 as follows Gazette of Friday, 7 September
The reason that the Ministerfor Heritage has proposed theremoval is as follows "Given: that the Hon. Member for Cones loe, the Hon. ColinBarnett has raised with Legislative Assembly the protracted me in the dispute with respect to thisproperty; that this property is dilapidated beyond reasonable repair, compromisingits heritage value; and that there is no perceived public utility in maintaining the heritagelisting; I propose to remove this property from the State Register of HeritagePlaces." The heritage act requires thata motion be passed in both houses of Cottesloc has moved the motion in this Parliament. That is why the memberfor house today and why a motion willalso be required in the other house. I indicate my support for the member for Cottesloe's sensiblemotion. supporters of heritage in our state will be I know that people whoare proud disappointed to see this heritage listingremoved. I know many of those people have not had the opportunityto inspect the property, which is not highly visible from thestreet. The Cliffe is a private property thatmost people have not had the opportunity this as a sensible and practical to see. However, many people willsee heritage decision. We must determineour priorities on heritage matters in order protect and preserve priority buildings,not all of which will necessarily to buildings that need protection be grand buildings. Some ofthe will be of value for an assortmentof reasons and some, humble buildings or places. no doubt, will be quite This decision has been made after much consideration has beengiven to a whole range of issues. practical to do so, I would haveliked to find another location If it were it to its former glory. That to transport and relocate The Cliffeand re- establish would have been good to do, but it isneither practical to donor would it be a cost- effective use of heritage dollars.If we were to have significant amounts of money to spendon heritage issues it might be different, butmy view is that there are much higher priorities. Question put and passed. Request for Council 's Concurrence On motion by Mr C.J. Barnett,resolved That the Legislative Councilbe acquainted with the resolution resolution. and be invited to passa similar Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 29 May2008] p3296f-3300a Hon Peter Collier; President; Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich; Hon GizWatson; Hon Norman Moore THE CLIFFE REMOVAL FROM REGISTEROF HERITAGE PLACES Assembly's Message Message from the Assembly notifyingthat it had agreed to a resolution Heritage of Western Australia that pursuant to section54(7) of the Act 1990, the property knownas The Cliffe, which was permanently the Register of Heritage Placeson 19 July 2005, notice of which entered into appears in the Government Gazette of 29July 2005 at page 3365, should beremoved from the Register of Heritage agree to a similar resolution, now considered. Places, and requesting that theCouncil
Motion HON PETER COLLIER (North Metropolitan) (10.04 am] without notice: I move That in response to Legislative Assembly message 323 the followingmotion be agreed to That this house resolvespursuant to section 54(7) of the Heritage 1990 that the property known of Western Australia Act as The Cliffe, which was permanentlyentered into the Register of Heritage Places on 19 July2005, notice of which 29 July 2005 at page 3365, should appears in the Government Gazette of be removed from the Register ofHeritage Places. Mr President, I do notmove this motion lightly. I have given it situation surrounding The Cliffe. a lot of consideration. I am familiarwith the As a former teacher of history, Iam cognisant of the necessity to keep with the past, particularly of therole that the Heritage of Western our links However, I urge members to Australia Act plays in the community. support this motion, asIfeel that in this instance it property, The Cliffe, be removed from the is entirely valid that the Register of Heritage Places. I wouldlike to just spend Hon Kim Chance: Is the member goingto seek a suspension? Hon PETER COLLIER: No, I donot think I need to. Point of Order The PRESIDENT: Is the Leader ofthe House raising a point of order? Hon KIM CHANCE: Yes. Mr President,we arc apparently dealing with process for dealing with an order of the day an order of the day. I believe the at this stage requires a suspension ofthe temporary sessional order. The PRESIDENT: No. Hon KIM CHANCE: That ismy point. The PRESIDENT: 1 understand thepoint the Leader of the House is 7(3), which, in part, states making. It is governed bytemporary order More than one mattermay be listed for consideration including SO 72, or an order of the day butexcluding a motion without notice, a motion under (a) business in the name of a ministeror parliamentary secretary; I do not consider order of the day 623, headed in the noticepaper as "Heritage of Western Australia to be business in the name of Act 1990", a minister or a parliamentary secretary.My recollection is that the Leader House moved to have thematter made an order of the day, but that of the business of the house, This is was a matter merely of facilitatingthe not a matter that is in the name ofa minister or a parliamentary without alluding to debates in another secretary. In fact, place, I am aware from othersources that it is very much a matter of opposition business, not governmentbusiness. Debate Resumed Hon PETER COLLIER: For the benefitof members I will spenda bit of time providing some information the history of The Cliffe and haw on we have come to this point. The Cliffeis situated at 25 Bindaring Peppermint Grove. It isa rambling timber home that was built in Parade, Neil McNeil. McNeil was two stages between 1894 and 1898by engineer an engineer and railway contractor whocame to Western Australia from Victoria 1872 to construct the Jarrandale-Bunburyrailway line. He was in including the Jarrandale Timber a successful businessman with severalinterests, Company, which exported to Britain.He used The Cliffe asa showpiece for his faith in timber as a building material.The architect was said to be J. Talbot confirm that this is the Hobbs; however, there isno record to case. Part of the property was subdivided in1915 to create 20 lots for auction. borders of the subdivisionwere McNeil Street and the Perth-Fremantle The road, now knownas Stirling Highway, which formed the northernpart of Peppermint Grove. After McNeil's death in 1927 his wife left TheCliffe and the property was sold to prominentindustrialist Hugh Lance Brisbane. 1933, making way for his brother David, Brisbane moved to JohnstonStreet in a businessman and company chairman,to take over The Cliffe. He died
[1] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 29 May 2008] p3296f-3300a Hon Peter Collier; President; Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich; Hon GizWatson; Hon Norman Moore
in 1960, and in 1962 theproperty was subdivided into six lots by Cotswold Investments, whichkept one lot, and the second lot was soldto the Brisbane family. The house lot sold at a record price of£8 900. Itis these subdivisions that some localssay destroyed the original character and context of the properly. Itwas later owned by plastic surgeon Dr HaroldMcComb until 1995, when it was bought by Shelton Creasy for$2,7 million. She had intended to develop theproperty but has been unable to do so because of ongoing heritage issues.The Cliffe was advertised for sale by public auction inMarch 1995. No advertisement, or inquiries by the Creasys made brochure, other advertising material any reference to the possibility of it beingconserved under the Heritage of Western Australia Act. Itwas not listed on any municipal inventory Heritage Council had not commenced required by section 45 of theact and the any step of any kind to enter the landon the register of heritage places at the time of purchase. Mrs Creasyhad no reason to believe at the time she purchased the property thatshe would not be able to develop it as she intended.If the Heritage Council didit not purchase the was so interested in conserving TheCliffe, why property at auction, instead of persecutingprivate owners? Mrs architectural and planning fees that Creasy incurred she would not otherwise have incurredif she had been told that The may be preserved for heritagereasons. Cliffe Mrs Creasy's intention to developthe property, which required demolition of The Cliffe,came to the attention of the Heritage Council shortly thereafter.A conservation order was placed, The Cliffe on the Register of and the council responded byentering Heritage Places on an interim basison 10 October 1995. While that interim. registration remainedon hold, Mrs Creasy could not develop the property. Finally, almost nine years after The Cliffe had been purchased, andeight and a half years after it had been placed on the Register ofHeritage Places on an interim basis, Mrs Creasy requestedby letter dated 18 February 2004 that the Heritage Councilremove the entry from the register, Instead of removingthe entry from the register, the Heritage Council changed theentry for The Cliffe to a permanentregistration on 27 February 2004. When Mr McCusker, QC,on behalf of Mrs Creasy, argued that the permanentregistration was invalid, the Heritage permanent registration on 6 July 2004, Council responded by removingthe entering a fresh registrationon an interim basis on 20 July 2004, issuing a conservation orderon 13 May 2005. and No adequate justification nor, indeed, any justification at all,was given for the lengthy delay in heritage value of The Cliffe.No explanation or justification assessing the was given for any failure to offera heritage agreement over that time. No explanation hasbeen given for the failure to even enter The Cliffe. ona municipal inventory prepared by the localauthority. When the Heritage Council register, Mrs Creasy instructed refused to remove the entry fromthe solicitors to file a writ ofsummons in the Supreme Court to challenge registration, whichwas initiated on 24 December 2004. The the Heritage Council respondedthrough the State Solicitor's Office by,among other things, asking the Supreme Court irregularity on the part of the Heritage to retrospectively authoriseany procedural Council in its secondpermanent registration. After Mrs Creasy hadspent well over $225 000 in legal costs and experts' fees in just tryingto make the property free for developmentas she had originally wished, she sought Hanly. Thal opinion was to the a second legal opinion from Hotchkin effect that her claim had merit,but that the pleadings of both require amendment in order for panics would the issues to be properly joinedat trial and that, even if she Heritage Council may not necessarily were successful, the be prevented from reinstatingthe entire process again, including of a fresh conservation order.Mrs Creasy was advised, in the issue an effort to try to resolve the matteronce and for all, to ask the minister to interveneor, in the event that the minister was unable or unwilling to intervene,to request the State Administrative Tribunalto rule on whether the state should Accordingly, Hotchkin Hanly, acquire the property at itsmarket. value. on behalf of Mrs CreaSy, invited the HeritageCouncil to consider agreement whereby The Cliffe would be a heritage relocated to a public location andrestored under the authority and direction of the stateor, alternatively, for the state to acquire the property at market value so that it couldrestore The Cliffe and make it availableto the public where it currently stands. Those offers were made in August2006, but were rejected, and the ministerwas requested by letter dated 28 August State Administrative Tribunal. 2006 to refer both mattersto the During the Supreme Court proceedings, various expels'reports had been obtained. The Mr Colgan, an expert builder with stateretained long experience in remediation ofheritage -value buildings, and retained Mr Faigen, a respected Mrs Creasy architect. Both experts identifiedmany areas requiring immediate attention. state's expert, Mr Colgan, saidthat The Cliffe was uninhabitable The $2.8 million and estimated that it wouldcost at least it could be muchmore, and certainly would be much Cliffe habitable. If The Cliffe more in today's valuesjust to makeThe were to be renovated for thepurpose of modem living, it would more, and he was not prepared to put cost very much any sort of estimate of costs on that basisbecause of the uncertainty the extent to which that wouldbe required. The Cliffe is as to not observable by any member of thepublic from the road or adjoining properties and itwill never be made available to the public while it remains inprivate ownership. Two ceilings inside thehouse have imploded. It is unliveable and substantialcapital works are required just to make it liveableat a standard equal to that enjoyed by residents approximatelyone century ago.
12] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 29 May 2008] p3296f-3300a Hon Peter Collier; President; Hon Ljiljanna Rav lich; Hon GizWatson; Hon Norman Moore
Itis now more than 12years since Mrs Creasy purchased The Cliffe and, after having incurred wellover $225 000 in legal and consultants'fees challenging the state's view about its heritage value, the issueremains unresolved and Mrs Creasycan neither sell the property at its true market value nor develop itas she wishes. The Heritage Council and its experts havefailed to exercise of a property in private ownership commonsense in anticipating the reducedheritage value that is not visible toany member of the public, and which dilapidated and hedged in by is severely new developments. The state has implicitlyacknowledged that the benefit to members of the public cannot bejustified, by refusing to even negotiate with Mrs Creasyon the prospective purchase price of property. MrsCreasy's lawyers have requested a meeting to negotiate eitherterms of a prospective heritage agreementor the terms of the purchase and the Heritage commence negotiations. The Heritage Council will Council has refused toeven not even entertain relocating TheCliffe to a more public place, claiming that the heritagevalue of a dilapidated building not otherwise visible or accessibleto any member of the public would be underminedby its being relocated. In summary, the housewas placed on the list after it was purchased by the current owner. The local councilhad not placed it on the municipal inventory, andthis has seriously affected the owner's property rights. The house is in extremely poor condition, requiringmore than $3 million to make it safe and habitable. to purchase the property. As The state is not willing a private house, it is not open to the public,and it is not clearly visible from street, The public gets no benefit from the the heritage listing. It is not worththe millions of dollars involved in either relocation or restoration,The Minister for Heritage, Hon Michelle indicated her support for the removal Roberts, has visited the site and has of the property from the heritageregister. Having given that precis of thecircumstances surrounding The Cliffe from the original purchase byMrs Creasy to the present day, as I said in my initialcomments, I am very familiar with the property. I coached tennis very close circumstances surrounding this to The Cliffe for 15 years, and I wentpast the property virtually every day. It was five years before Ieven found out where The Cliffe was. The house cannot actually beseen or accessed from Bindaring Parade; itis necessary to go down a laneway. When the situationarose originally, and got a lot of press in the local media, particularlythe Mosman Cortesloe Post, as a history teacher I took the time togo and have a look at the property. It is completelyuninhabitable, and is deficient in house that is falling down, and has so many ways. It is a rambling no public access whatsoever. I came to that to do with the property in a formal conclusion before I had anything sense. Two years ago, I held the position of shadowMinister for Heritage, and I was contacted by Mark and SharonCreasy to come and have a look at the house. My previousconcerns were reinforced when I was given the opportunityto have a close-up look at The Cliffe. It to me that the only thing that could really was blatantly evident be done with the housewas to remove it,It really has no heritage value, The issues of the legal implicationsin the stand-off between the Creasys and the Heritage Councilare redundant, in my view,Ireally feel that The Cliffe is notworthy of a heritage listingit dilapidated building with isa rambling, no prospect of recovery. I urge members tosupport this motion. HON LALJANNA RAVLICH(East Metropolitan Minister for Local Government) government will support this motion. The [10.19 am]: The honourable member has givena very extensive overview of the history of The Cliffe, providing significantinformation to members. This has period, including when I been a controversial issueover a long was Minister for Heritage. There isno doubt that, over time, this building has increasingly difficult to restore become to its former grandeur. There isno doubt that it would be totally cost prohibitive to undertake that restoration work. The Minister for Heritage has rightly madea decision on this issue, which she is quite entitled to do under theact. She is satisfied that it is not practical in the circumstances andon balance to continue to have this buildingon the Register of Heritage Places; indeed, she has made the decision that itbe removed from the register. Asa result of forming this view last year, the Minister be published in the Government Gazette for Heritage caused a noticeto on Friday, 7 September 2007, which I knowthe member for Cottesloe is aware of It outlines the reason that the Minister for Heritage has proposed its removaland states "Given: that the Hon. Member for Cottesloe, the Hon, Colin Barnetthas raised with mein the Legislative Assembly the protracteddispute with respect to thisproperty; that this property is dilapidated beyond reasonable repair, compromising itsheritage value; and that there is no perceived public utilityin maintaining the heritage listing; I propose to remove this property from the State Register of HeritagePlaces," The Heritage of Western Australia Act requires that a motion bepassed in both houses of Parliament. government supports the motion. The Cliffe is The a private property that most people havenot had the opportunity to see; however, many people will understandthat this move is a sensible and practical clearly, we must determine the priorities heritage decision. Quite of heritage matters in orderto protect and preserve priority buildings, not all of which will necessarily be grand buildings. Some of the buildings thatneed protection will be of value for an assortment ofreasons and some, no doubt, will be quite humble buildings or places. I think thatthe
[3] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 29 May 2008] p3296f-3300a Hon Peter Collier; President; Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich; Hon GizWatson; Hon Norman Moore
decision has been made after muchconsideration and deliberation by the happy to support this motion. Minister for Heritage. Weare naturally HON GIZ WATSON (NorthMetropolitan) [10.22 am]: The Greens (WA) oppose this motion fora number of reasons. It has the potential to seta very had precedent, and I will explain why. motion was brought on for debate My first problem is that this fairly rapidly. I realise thata lot of things have been happening this the only capacity the Greens had week, but to take advice on this matter was overnight.I thank my research staff for their ability to research this issueat such short notice. I understand that the LegislativeAssembly has passed a motion to remove The Cliffe from the Registerof Heritage Places pursuant to section54(7) of the Heritage of Western Australia dealing with the approval Act 1990. Obviously,we are now thatisrequired from theLegislative Council to finalise understanding is that this is the first that removal. My time that such a motion has beenpresented to both houses of Parliament. understand that both thegovernment and opposition support this I register. Although there resolution to remove theproperty from the are some arguments for the delisting,at this point I will advise of principle concern is that our concerns. Our we have not seenI am sure thatno-one else has eitherthe Heritage Council's to the minister.I noted with interest that Hon advice Ljiljanna Ravlich said that shewas sure that the minister had considered this mattervery thoroughly. She might have, but We are the Parliament and we havea right to understand what advice has been givento the minister by the Heritage Council. with the minister's office and it has f have just had communication been reaffirmed that this information willnot be made public. I wonder why we even have a Heritage Council to provideadvice on heritage matters. Quite on heritage is pretty abysmal. frankly, this government's record Hon Kim Chance: Oh! Hon GIZ WATSON: No, it istrue. Members need look only at the Sunset government will not put any money into conserving hospital site languishing becausethe it in the way that heritage placesin this state deserve when it has money coming out of itsears. It is extraordinary. The only propositions various heritage sites that that we have heard compromisethe we are supposedly preserving. It is exceedinglyunsatisfactory that this house has been asked to pass this resolution todaywithout the benefit of seeing the advice interest of members, I asked for from the Heritage Council. Forthe a copy of the advice from the Heritage Councilabout the removal of The Cliffe from the Register of Heritage Places,but 1 have not been provided with it. I have also been advised that I willnot be provided with that advice. It isworth noting that the removal of this property from the heritage registerwas advertised in The West Australianand The Australian. Twenty-eight submissions were received. Itis worth noting that 23 submissions favouredremoval, two were neutral and three the advice or the report, I do favoured retention. As I havenot seen not know who said what, butt would be interestedto know who were the three who favoured the retention of theproperty on the heritage register.
On the issue of whether theproperty was purchased prior to the interim minister's office that it was around the listing, f have an indication fromthe same time but the current owners didnot have knowledge of it. They bought the property almost immediatelyand after that they discovered that it had been heritage listed.The former owners were aware that theproperty was being considered for heritage current owners. My concern is that listing, but did not advise the we have not seen the advice. Thissets a very dangerous precedent of delisting properties on the Registerof Heritage Places without that Parliament. Members are meant full advice being made availableto to represent the public of Western Australia,but we, the decision makers, have not been provided with that information,I think it is a serious transgression made available to us before that that information has not been we must make a decision. We are simply relyingon the minister's view. Perhaps it is a little late to get a response from the ministerIshould have stood earlierbut I whether part of the reason for the would be interested to know timing and the imperative to deal withthis matter at this time is that,as I understand it, there is a threat of legal actionagainst the government. That view. ups the ante quite considerably inmy
Hon Peter Collier interjected. Hon GIZ WATSON: Okay; that might be misinformation, I understandthe point about the amount offunds that will be required to restore thisbuilding. The argument is the same for the Sunset hospital site. Heritagebuildings cost money to maintain and restore; thatgoes with the territory, basically. It is alternatives for a heritage not right to argue that thereare no property that is on private property; thereare ways of resolving that. conversations with the National I have had Trust of Australia about its viewon this.It opposes the delisting and has suggested an alternative; that is, that theowner donate the property to the trust for same time a full tax deduction equal to the restoration and obtain at the current value of the properly. In thatway, the property could be maintained in the public realm and theowner would not be out of pocket. There significant heritage buildings that are ways of dealing with are on private property. Obviously, thestate has consideredrightly, it could be argued, on economic groundsthatthat is not the way to go or is too expensive. I stress that my main pointis
[4] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Thursday, 29 May 2008] p3296f-3300a Hon Peter Collier; President; Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich;Hon Giz Watson; Hon Norman Moore
that the Greens (WA) will oppose this motion because it hasnot heard what the Heritage Council of Western Australia thinks about it. We have heard only the government'sand minister's view. The Heritage Council is supposed to be an independent body that is able to provide adviceto not only the public, but also the Parliament to assist it in forming its decisions. On that basis, we oppose this motion. HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral Leader of the Opposition)[10.30 am]: 1 will quickly indicate that Hon Peter Collier and the minister have givento the house very good reasons that this motion should be agreed to. I indicate to Hon Giz Watson that Iregret that she did not have more notice to allow her to consider this motion, This motion has come on for debate during privatemembers' time. On Tuesday Liberal members discussed whether this matter could be dealt with in privatemembers' business. It was only yesterday that we worked out whether we could. Indeed, the adviceon how it could be done changed again this morning. The Greens' research officer rang me yesterday morningto find out what we had planned for private members' time. I advised him that we would debate this motion, Igave him as much notice as I could, albeit he phoned me rather than me phoning him. I apologise for that. On the basis that there isbroad support from the major parties, at least, for this motion, we decided to proceed with it today. I think Hon Giz Watsonhas demonstrated that she has a very good research officer, albeit he has come to thewrong conclusion in the short time available to him to research this matter.
Question put and a division taken with the following result Ayes (25)
Hon Ken Hasten Hon Brian Ellis Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Barbara Scott Hon Matt Benson-Lidholm Hon Donna Faragher Hon Sheila Mills Hon Sally Talbot Hon George Cash Hon Adele Farina Hon Norman Moore Hon Ken Travers Hon Kim Chance Hon Jon Ford Hon Helen Morton Hon Ed Dern= (Teller) Hon Peter Collier Hon Nigel Hallett Hon Simon O'Brien Hon Wendy Duncan Hon Ray Halligan Hon Batong Pham Hon Sue Ellery Hon Barry House Hon Ljiljanna Revile!' Noes (3)
Hon Shelley Archer Hon Paul Llewellyn Hon Giz Watson (Teller) Question thus passed.
151 Author: P O'Connor, A/Manager Assessment& Registration Office of Origin: Heritage Council of Western Australia Your Reference: HCWA 88 Our Reference: P1924
MINISTER FOR HERITAGE
TILE CLIFFE, PEPPERMINT GROVE
ISSUE: To advise the Minister as to the recommendation of Council in relationto removal of the place known as The Cliffe from the Registerof Heritage Places.
RECOMMENDATION: Having advertised the Minister'srequest under Section 54(2) of the Heritageof Western Australia Action 1990 ("the Act"), and afterdue consideration of all the submissions received and in accordance with itsresponsibilities under the Act, the HeritageCouncil resolved to recommend that the Ministerfor Heritage:
1. maintains the entry of The Cliffe whichis the parcel of land comprisingof Lots 28 and 29 on Diagram 8903 and Lots25, 26 and 27 on Plan 3783 being the whole of the land contained in Certificateof Title Volume 1265 Folio 334 on the State Register of Heritage Places; and,
2.urge the owner to discuss subdivision and/ordevelopment options with the Heritage Council.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PLACE
The Dille is a rare example of theuse of weatherboard in a substantial 'gentleman's residence in Perth which has, intact, thesubsidiary building of coachhouse, stables, summerhouse, servants cottages, andpart of the original gardens. The place has historical associations with the prominent McNeil and Brisbane families (owners) and withJ. Talbot Hobbs (architect), and isa representative example of a turn of thecentury gentleman's residence, with its quality perioddetailing intact.
It is one of the first houses built inPeppermint Grove, and hasa close association with the subdivision and development of thesuburb. (Attachment A)
CURRENT STATUS
1.On 3 September the Minister for Heritagewrote to the Director of the Heritage Council requesting that the Council advisethe Minister within 28 dayson the removal of the place knownas The 011ie (Palace No. 4094) from the Registerof Heritage Places. 2. On 14 September the Heritage Councilconsidered the Ministers request and advised the Minister that: Section 54(2) of the Act requires HCWAto advertise the proposed removal and solicit public comment fora period of 6 weeks; The Council will fully advise the Ministeron the removal of The Cliffe from the register after the Council has hadan opportunity to consider submissions received from the public in response to the advertisement; Council requests Officers to contact/liaisewith other appropriate stakeholders.
3. HCWA officers placed notices in the Gazetteand in the West Australian for 7 September 2007, describing the place proposed forremoval and the reasons for the proposal, as advised by Dr Bill Leadbetteron behalf of the Minister for Heritage and invited submissions by 4:00 pmon Friday, 19 October 2007 (Attachment BNotice of proposal removal advertised in the GovernmentGazette on 7 September 2007), 4.Thirty submissions were received.
5.The Heritage Council considered the Minister'srequest for advice on removing the Cliffe from the Register at its meetingon 9 November 2007.
6.In addition to the recommendationat the beginning of this briefing note, the Council agreed that the package to the Minister should:
i) list the reports and documents the HeritageCouncil considered at its meeting ii) provide a chronology of events that outlinesHCWA's negotiations with the owner, including informal discussions regarding subdivision,development and relocation iii) highlight that the current condition doesnot alter the cultural significance of the place, but may be an issue for consideration ina development proposal iv) highlight the formal development applicationsthat have been forwarded to the Heritage Council for consideration and itsresponses.
7. The following section covers the informationthe Council requested be included inthe briefing note:
Public Submissions
8.The Council considered the 30 submissions received.Of these, 25 support the removal of The Cliffe from the State Register,three submissions indicated theywere against the removal and two submissions didnot indicate a position,
9.Hotchkin Hanly Lawers [sic] submitteda letter supporting removal on behalf of the owner, Mrs Sharon Creasy. (Attachment C) 10. In summary, those who support the removal of The ChM from theState Register base their view on the following, i.e, that the place is in a dilapidatedstate, beyond reasonable repair and there isno public utility in maintaining the heritagelisting. Many believe that the partial subdivision and development of the originalland has reduced The Cliffe's heritage value.(Attachment D) 11. The Heritage Council considered the argument relating to conditionand subdivision and concluded that the current condition does not alter the cultural significanceof the place. It was acknowledged, however,that the condition may bean issue for consideration in a developmentproposal.
12. The Heritage Council considered the argument relating to subdivision,and concluded that rather than significantly devaluing the cultural heritage of the place,there is scope for further subdivision of the land to be explored.The presence of subdivision and development is not a sustainableargument for not registering placesor removing them from the Register.
13. In summary, those who donot support the removal of The Cliffe fromthe State Heritage Register believe that the placeis an outstanding example ofimportant heritage, a rare example ofa sumptuous tribute to the great timbers ofWestern Australia and despite a lack of conservationmaintenance in recent times is readily capable of repair. (Attachment E)
14. Those who are undecided note that the Heritage of Western Australia Act1990 does not adequately deal with the impact ofowner inaction on heritage values. They also suggest that better integration of themanagement of heritage values within the normal processes of local and regional planning and throughdevelopment approvals could be given consideration. Similarlygreater emphasis should be placedon incentive based schemes so that the importance of ongoingstewardship can playa role in proactively and positively engaging privateproperty owners. (Attachment F)
Condition Reports
15. The Council considered the followingfour confidential conditionreports on The Cliffe compiled in responseto the pending Supreme Courtcase on the 2004 interim registration (Attachment G): i)2007 report by Ian Hocking (for theHeritage Council) ii) 2007 Report by Martin Colgan(for the Heritage Council) iii) 2006 Report by Ronald Bodycoat(for Sharon Creasy) iv) 2006 Report by Philip Faigen(for Sharon Creasy)
16. The Council also considered the 1995 condition report by Ian Hockingthat supported the initial interim registration, which formedpart of 15(i) above.
17. As noted above at point 11, theCouncil concluded that thecurrent condition has not altered the cultural significance of theplace. Formal Development/SubdivisionApplicat ons
18. Only two formal development applications have been referredto the Heritage Council in relation to The Chffe since itwas registered: i) 2001 amalgamation of The Cliffe with the adjacentproperty at 35 McNeil Street, demolition of the house at 35 McNeilStreet, demolition of the north wingof The Cliffe and constriction of a new north wing, demolition of the stablesand the water tower, relocation of the Greenhousesupported with conditions (AttachmentH) ii) 2004 demolition of the existing buildingand associated outbuildingsnot supported (Attachmen( I)
19. No formal application has been lodgedsince registration for either subdivisionor relocation of The C11:fie.
Informal Discussions regardingDevelopment/Subdivision 20. As the Heritage Council's files are currently held in the Supreme Court pendingthe matter of the 2004 registration being heard, it isnot possible to provide the Minister with all the details of informal discussionsbetween the agency and theowner regarding the possible options for the site.However the followingcan be confirmed: i) On 27 June 1995, lawyers acting forMr Creasy wrote to the HeritageCouncil inviting "any proposal fromyour Council to acquire the building", noting thatthey had already approached the Shire ofPeppermint Grove with this proposal,and had lodged a demolition licence applicationto effect removal. (Attachment J) As the Heritage Council were in theprocess of considering the place for the StateRegister, the Minister agreed to placea Conservation Order on The Chffeto prevent demolition occurring. The Heritage Council'sresponse of 28 July 1995 noted that the background to the matter of demolitionwould be presented to the Council.
ii) After Interim Registration inSeptember 1995, the Heritage Councilengaged in discussions with the Ministry for Planningregarding possibly options for subdivision. (Attachment K)
iii) On 20 November 1995, lawyersacting for Mr Creasy senta detailed submission in response to the Interim Registrationof The Cliffe, which reiteratedthe suggestion to relocate the main building, this time specificallyto Manners Hill Park in Peppermint Grove. The Heritage Councilresponded on 18 December 1995, noting that the Minister would be preparedto meet Mr Creasy on site to inspect thebuilding. (Attachment L)
iv) In January 1996, the HeritageCouncil commissioneda report from the Valuer General's Office on the impact of heritageregistration on the value of theproperty. The report of 6 February 1996 noted that the unimproved value of theproperty could be reduced to $1,5000,000 if the owner entered into a heritage agreement, resultingin a reduction in land tax and MRIT of$7,375 (Attachment M)
v) On 22 February 1996, the Minister met with Mrs Creasy,together with the Chair and Acting Director of the Heritage Council atThe Chffeto discuss her concerns. As a consequence of that meeting, the Director of the Heritage Councilagreed to defer consideration of permanent registrationto allow for options to be explored. (Attachment N)
vi) On 7 March 1996, the Director wrote to the Creasysoutlining the agency's findings on subdivision and development options at that point,noting that the best return while conserving the building was re-subdivision which would resultin the removal of some less significant portions of the structure, and thatthis could be undertaken in conjunction witha remission of rates and taxesas part of a conservation package/agreement.(Attachment 0)
vii)During May and June 1996, the Director and other HeritageCouncil staff had meeting and discussions with the Creasys, their planningrepresentative Paul Dune from Joseph Charles Learmonth Duffy. The Heritage Councilagreed to approach the Shire of Peppermint Grove regarding their planning requirementsand scope for flexibility in terms of planningoutcomes. (Attachment P)
viii) On 28 June 1995 the Heritage Council wrote to MrCreasy summarising their findings and stating that theywould be prepared tosupport a subdivision proposal. (Attachment Q) No subdivision applicationwas lodged.
ix) On 19 September 1996, the Minister wrote to Mr Creasynoting that the Heritage Council had offered to assistin progressing a subdivisionoption if the owner wanted to pursue this option. (Attachment R) No application for subdivisionwas lodged. x) By November 1996, Mr Clune was pursuing potentialpurchasers forThe Cliffe behalf of the Creasys. And on on 11 November 1996, the Directormet with Mr Peter Bacich to discuss his development proposal for the site. (Attachment8) xi) On 28 July 2001, Stephen Carrick and another HeritageCouncil officer met the Creasys' representative on site to discuss outline developmentplans for the site prior to the formal lodging of a development application in September1996 [sic] as noted above. (Attachment T) xii) On January 2005, the Director and Chair of the Heritage Councilmet with the Creasys at The Chffeto discuss Mr Creasy's proposalsfor the property which included relocation of the building to Manners Hill at the Heritage Council'sexpense, and subdivision of the property to construct twoten-storey tower blocks. Mr Creasy noted that the Shire of Peppermint Grove had not formally consideredthe issue of relocation of the building. (AttachmentU) xiii) On 11 August 2006, HotchkinHanly Lawyers wroteto the Heritage Council on behalf of the owner offering to sell The Cliffeto the Heritage Council for $20,000,000, or enter into a Heritage Agreement with theowner and the Shire of Peppermint Grove whereby the owner would gift all structuresat The Cliffe to HCWA, which would relocate them to Manners Hill Park.(They subsequently also wrote to the Minister on the 28th August 2006). The offerwas declined by the Heritage Council's Executive Committee on 23 August 2006on the basis that the cultural significance of the place relates to its location, thatthe negotiation of a Heritage Agreement predicated on relocation was inappropriate, andthat the property is capable of beneficialuse. (At(achment V) Summary
There have been several attempts to engage with theowners over the last 12 years with little effect. The Council hasendeavoured to negotiatean outcome that conserves the place in situ whilst enabling further development of the landvia subdivision. There would appear to have been little or no maintenance carried outon the structures over this time resulting in the current level of deterioration.Notwithstanding the current condition of the place there have been numerous examples where properties havebeen restored by a sympathetic owner that are in farworse condition. The Council is concerned that removing a place from theRegister on the grounds of the deterioration caused by neglect could result in a number of otherrequests for removal on the same grounds, resulting ina loss of significant places. The fact accessible to the public is that the place is not an argument that applies tonumerous places on the state register. If this principle is adopted as a reason for not registeringa place then some owners may request removal on thesame grounds resulting inan inability to both recognise and protect places ofstate significance in the future. (signed) Ian Baxter DIRECTOR
2e November 2007 Author: Christine Lewis (9220 4145 Office of Origin: Heritage Council of WesternAustralia Your Reference: HCWA 71 Our Reference: PLACE NUMBER 1924
MINISTER FOR HERITAGE
THE CLIFFS, PEPPERMINTGROVE
ISSUE: Legal advice on the actions by the owner in the SupremeCourt and the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) against the application of theHeritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (the Act) to the place known as The Cliffe,Peppermint Grove, and the subsequent exposure of the Stateto considerable compensation claims action taken as recommended depending on the by the State Solicitor's Office(SSO).
RECOMMENDATION: That a meeting be urgently arranged involving the Minister,SSO and the Heritage Council to discuss the ramifications and options available in thislegal matter.
BACKGROUND: 1. In 2004 the owner of theregistered place knownas The Cliffe in Peppermint Grove launched a SupremeCourt action to challenge and thereby its inclusion in the significance of the place the State Register of HeritagePlaces. 2. In 2005 the owner changed legal representation and, whilenot withdrawing the Supreme Court matter, commenceda new legal approach to force the the property by the State purchase of or the force the State to entera legal agreement to move the house from the property top a public park to allowdevelopment of the site. [sic]
3. When these proposals were considered by the Heritage Councilin September 2006, the ramifications ofthe implementation of theAct in Western Australia not apparent. It is now clear that was not only the current operationof the Act is under threat but the exposure of theState to further similar actionsis real and extensive in terms of compensation claims or the underminingof the Register. Serious consideration needs to be consideredto amending the Actremove the clauses that expose the State to these undermining claims.
4. It is understood that the Minister has advice from SSOabout the options available to the State Government in relationto this matter. The Heritage Council by SSO that the Minister is advised has met with theowner without the assistance of either SSO or HCWA, It is also understood that the Ministerhas not had the opportunity to have the advice of the Heritage Council on the ramificationsof adopting any of the suggested solutionsidentified by the SSOto date. 5. The next status conference for 6tI, Supreme Courtmatter is on 6 June 2007 and SSO have advised that policy decisions need to be madein relation to this before 30 May 2007 matter to ensure that appropriate noticeis provided to the owner's legal representativeon this matter
There are a number ofconcerns with the conclusions and SSO. In essence the SSO recommendations proposed by recommendations appear to bebased on these factors: 1. There is a covenant on the title of the land, which limitsdevelopment to a single residence. This covenant has nothing to do withthe entry of the place in the Register or the operation of the Act buteverything to do with protecting the amenity ofthose who live closeto the Cliffe. 2. SSO have concluded that SAT would find that there isno reasonable and beneficial use for the property based on a cost estimateproposed by a builder. These estimates are not supported by conservationarchitects, as the work required is not defined and therefore theestimate is baseless and should not be relied upon for making decisions in relationto this matter.
Further it is the view of the HCWAthat: 1. The option of the Ministerexercising her discretionnot to refer the request by the owner under section76 of the Act,as discussed by SSO, should be followed. The Act is notprescriptive in thisarea and does not set out how and when to apply it. There are also no policies in place thatwould guide the use of discretion. 2. The recommended SSOapproach to remove the placefrom the Register cannot be supported by HCWA as it undermines the value of theRegister and the intent and operationof the Act and introducesa precedent whereby other owners wouldseek similar treatment. Pertinent matters The Restrictive Covenanton the title The Restrictive Covenant was place on the title in 1962. It limitsthe development achievable on the site toa single residence. The site is close times the size of a normal to 5000 square metres of 10 suburban block. It is understoodthat such a covenantmay be able to be amendedor lifted and SSO is investigating what this process would entail.This covenant is not related inany way to the entry of the place in the able to be lifted then there is State Register. If it is the possibility ofmore intensive developmenton the land, which could assist the conservationof the place.
The interpretation of reasonableand beneficial use This term has not been tested in law in this State andnot in relation to the Act. Counsel for the owner appears to argue that Section 78 of the HWAAct requires the State purchase the property because, in to their view, entry of the Placeon the Register has precluded any reasonably beneficial use of the land, and no "reasonable"measures can render a beneficial use. Theproper interpretation of "reasonably seem to have been decided by beneficial use" doesnot an Australian court in thecontext of a heritage or planning regulation by which a land-owner claims to have beendeprived of the use of theirland, "Reasonable beneficial use" has been interpreted in otherCommonwealth jurisdictions, notably Canada. There the ruleappears to be that, where the value of diminished, the the land is owner can seek compensation if it availableby statute, but otherwise such compensation is payable. no As stated n a leadingCanadian decision (Harvard Investments v Winnipeg [1994]Carswell Man 71):
Compensation claims are statutory and depend on statutoryprovisions. No owner of lands expropriated bystatue for public purposes is entitled the value of land taken, to compensation, either for or for damage, on the ground that hisland is 'injuriously affected', unless hecan establish a statutory right.
Unlike compensation provisions found in many town planningstatues in Australia, the wording of section 76 does not suggest itto provide "compensation" for"injurious affection" nor does it set out a procedure for determining theappropriate level of compensation. Rather, it requires a finding that "no reasonably beneficialuse" remains available for the Place, and no reasonable measures can render theplace beneficially useful. In this wording itmore closely resembles a provision "taking", or an acquisition of to compensate for a all beneficial uses by theGovernment. The court in Harvard Investments rejected an owner's claimto compensation when historic hotel was listed an as an "historic place" by the city ofWinnipeg and theowner was forbidden from demolishing it.The court stated that thiswas:
Merely an exercise of a regulatorypower similar to the regulation of the through a zoning by-law. use of lands While it may have the effect oflimiting and curtailing theuse of the lands, it does notamount to a taking.
There hare ample possibilities for reasonably beneficialuses of the Place that do not involve demolition. The Cliffe'sowner's [sic] have in factdiscussed such possibilities with HCWA and received approval for some. Thus, thereis no basis on which determine if there is to no reasonably beneficial use, aside fromthe highly questionable conclusions in the Colgan report which state that the minimumcost to restore the Place to a habitable standard would be $2.2-$2.8million.
Use of the expert HCWAwitness statements SSO obtained expert witness statements in relation to the SupremeCourt matterfrom Mr Ian Hocking, Mr IanKelly and Mr Martin Colganon behalf of the Heritage Council. Mr Kelly and Mr Hocking are conservationarchitects and Mr Colgan is specialist builder. Mr Hocking's a report includes a schedule of possibleconservation works and Mr Colgan'sreport suggests that the building is it liveable for today's requirements structurally sound but to make could cost up to $2.8 million.Both Mr Kelly and Mr Hocking refute Mr Colgan's estimate and suggest that it isnot necessarily going to cost this amount and it isnot based on an overall scheme forthe building. It is the Heritage Council's view that not all of theworks proposed by either Mr or Mr Colgan are necessary to make Hocking the building attractiveto a more sympatheticowner with the desire to develop the place to live in. In fact itwould not be desirable for remedial works to be undertaken until such time asan overall scheme for the place resolved. was
Removal of the Place from theRegister of Heritage Places The concluding suggestion SSOhave made to the HeritageCouncil is that the place should be removed from the Registerto avoid undefined costs to the State. While this may in the short term deal with this particular disputeit has dramatic ramifications for the operation ofthe Act and the perception of believes that the State has the community which legislation in place to protectplaces of cultural heritage significance.
Removal from the Register of this place would be a dangerousprecedent and signal to owners that all they need to do is follow the legal path that theseowners have followed to be removed from the Register.This scenario wouldconcern the broader community and possibly see a vocal campaignagainst such actions and happen. any government that allowed itto
Acquisition of the property There are essentially three scenarios whereby the HeritageCouncil could possibly purchase the property interms of the Act.
The first scenario was put before the Heritage Council inSeptember 2006 andwas couched in terms of Section 74 ofthe Act, which seesan agreed price being reached between the Heritage Council and an owner. The proposal for purchase ofthe place for $20 million was declined by theHeritage Council,as the Council has no funding to undertake such an acquisition. Itwas also considered a dangerous Council and the State Government, precedent for the
In declining this proposal, the owners of the property were then ableto exercise a right under section 76 of the Act (20d option) to seek the Minister'sdirection to SAT for determination on the matter, It is our understanding that thisreferral has not been made date. to
The third scenario, under section73 of the Act, is compulsory achieving a conservation acquisition, with a view to outcome and to ensure the continualexistence of the place. The implications that are associated with an acquisition directionby SAT would be creating a legal ruling which would then form a precedentto other places whereowners object to listing andrequest demolish are involved, [sic]
Heritage Council conclusionsand comments There is demonstrable potential to extend, adapt and change theexisting house into very desirable home in this location. a There have been severalprevious plans discussed and approved by theHeritage Council withthe current carried out. owners, but none have been
There may also beopportunities for lifting the covenant and thereforeunlocking other potential for subdivision/developmentof the site.
There may be acase for the Heritage Council to reconsider the previousresolution not to pursue an acquisitionon the basis that the alternatives terms of the conservation of are significantly more damagingin the State's heritage andthe impact they would administration of the Act. have on the
If the Government adopteda proactive role in the process can be controlled such acquisition of theproperty then the that a conservationoutcome could be achieved. To pursue thiscourse of action would require: the support of theMinister and the Cabinet undertake a market valuationof the property undertake inquiries to ascertain the level ofinterest in acquisitionby private parties prepared to workwith the existing buildings investigate the covenant removal and subdivisionpotential of the site prepare a schedule of works to address the structureand waterproofing (possibly around $200,000 issues or less) sufficient to marketthe property prepare a heritage agreementto run with the land agree a process with Treasuryto borrovv the funds required for minimal conservation together with finds works and holdingcosts prior to sale. The benefit of theapproach is that it limits the precedent for futuresituation because it can be demonstrated that theCouncil has been unable from the owner to achieve support forconservation over an extended period of time(13 years) and this the only feasible action approach is seenas to ensure the conservationof the place.
It doesn't therefore signalto other owners that is easy to force acquisition, andit also says the Government is concernedabout and committed heritage. to conserving the State's
(signed)
Ian Baxter DIRECTOR
28 May 2007 Page 1 of
Top2NonorCora Donors to he The Liberal P
Rank Name Industry Amount Liberal Party Political party $1,794,973.00 2 The 500 Club Political PartyAssociated Entity $1,626,933.00 3 Falls, 1 Personal $175,879.00 4 Anderton, Mrs M Personal $107,748.00 5 The Free Enterprise Foundation Political Party - Associated Entity $104,083.00 6 Creasey, Mark Personal $85,300.00 7 Burns, Alan R Personal $80,000.00 8 Stevenage, Paul Personal $77,398.00 9 Small Business Alliance Professional Organisation $60,000.00 10 Jerks, D A Personal $52,903.00 11 Shave, Doug MLA Personal $52,626.00 12 Johnson, Rob Personal $50,960.00 13 Krone, Dr I Personal $44,500.00 Campbell, Ian Senator Political Party Associated Entity $40,000.00 15 Camard, Bruno (FHP) Personal $35,000.00 16 Warren, Ray Personal $35,000.00 17 Wright, M Personal $35,000.00 18 New, M Personal $32,000.00 19 Motor Trades Association Professional Organisation $31,790.00 20 Rinehart, Mrs G.H. Personal $28,500.00 Total: $4,550,593.00
http: / /www.nobi is- (Mations org Hon Len Roberts-Smith, QC Corruption and Crime Commission of WA PO Box 7667 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6850
Sydney, Wednesday 15th April 2009
The removal of the Cliffe from the WA Register of Heritage Places
Dear Mr Roberts Smith,
I wrote to you on the 31" March about this matterwrite again with some additional information on the same subject.
I have never been able to understand the motivation for Colin Barnett raising the grievance motion in the Legislative Assembly of behalf of Mark Creasy regarding the Cliffe. If,rather than a building, the Cliffe was a pet, any owner who had neglected it ina similar way would have likely been prosecuted. But in this case, aftera decade of active neglect by Mark Creasy, Colin Barnett stood in the parliament to argue that now that the buildingwas in such a poor state it should no longer be on the heritage register.
Like a number of other people, I cannot believe that this actionwas done in the best interest of the local community. It was clearly an action to benefit a single member of the community, Mark Creasy.
I recently had a e-mail from an acquaintance in the UK, who has also be interested in the saga of the Cliffe. (The old house has generated some international interest because itwas the childhood home of the internationally renowned musician andcomposer, David McComb). In that e-mail, he explained how he'd leant about the relationship betweenColin Barnett's son Russell and the pharmaceutical company Solbec (now tradingas Freedom Eye Ltd ASX code 'FYI").
Mark Creasy's Vandal Investments is the largest shareholder of Solbec, and RussellBa rnett was appointed to the board of Solbec after a company of which he is the chairman, Kirke Securities, underwrote Solbec's April 2007 share issue.
There is nothing in the history of Russell Barnett's association with Solbec that immediately declares some wrongdoing. Still there is something about it that suggests that somethinga bit crook may have been involved in these arrangements.I do not have the investigative powers of your commission, but I can imagine a narrative from what littleI have learnt that could plausibly explain an involvement between the Premier and his son's interests.
42 Brougham Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 I
brian waldron @unet net au ' Phone. (02) 8354 1449 SCANNE Mobile 0411 671 064 CGC 68771 Solbec may have a product worth developing.I don't know enough about it.I also don't know much about reading company reports, but it seems to me that they've raisedabout $23 million and spent about $21million, without generating muchincome. Share prices now seem less than 1 cent.
I'd say they're not doing great, butmaybe the investors are right to hangin for the big payoff. It does seem to me that thedirectors are doing okay. The four of themlook to be sharing in $300,000 pa in directors' fees.So if they give the chairman $100,000, theother three are sharing about $200,000 for their6 meetings a year. It wouldn'tseem a stretch to say they are making $10,000 per meeting.
The Placement and Rights issue in 2007hoped to raise $2.45 million and paidKirke Securities $122,500 in underwriting fees. I don't know what risk or service Kirke providesfor that, but it seems a bit likeeasy money. Part of that deal was that Russell Barnettand Graeme Kirke would be offered positions on the Solbec board. Russell took up a boardseat when offered. Graeme Kirke didn't takeone up. Maybe the offer wasn't made, maybe he turned it down.
That in itself doesn't suggest anythingunderhand, but it is plausible that MarkCreasy influenced Solbec to chose Kirke Securitiesas the underwriters of its share issue, with the condition that they then offer RussellBarnett a seat on the board. As Solbec's largest shareholder he could have threatenedto sell his stake at a time when theywere trying raise more capital. It could have sunk thewhole share offer and possibly crashed the company.
In this narrative, Col Barnett tells Creasy thathe'll do what he can about the Cliffe ifCreasy can influence Solbec to use Russell's Kirke Securities in thedeal to raise capital and toget him on the board. What would Solbec do?Exactly what they did. Theywere after the injection of cash and these sort of conditionswere just greasing the wheels. They got the money and they continue operating.
For Col, it's the sort of thing that a father could doin his remaining time in politics. Creasy does this favour in April 2007. Col stays good to his promise and, in August 2007,introduces the grievance motion for Creasyon the Cliffe. Cohn Barnett's probably thinking his timein politics is about done. He announces his retirement in November 2007, andpresses on and garners some support for Creasy's move on the Cliffe andintroduces the motion to delist it in May 2008 after he's sure it'll pass without objection. Creasy could be a handy mate inlife after politics.
Then some weird luck comes hisway. Troy Boswell is found sniffing the seats of femalestaff and he's gone as the Liberal leader. Suddenly Col's in with a chance to be leaderagain, and to his own surprise he gets the job.
42 Brougham Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 [email protected] au Phone (02) 8354 1449 Mobile 0411 671 064 Page 3
Alan Carpenter figures Col's a lame duck leader andmoves to capitalise on this by calling a snap election. That decision backfires and against all odds, Col'snot only back as leader, but has accidentally found himself Premier.
I think this narrative is plausible, but without furtherinvestigation it is not compelling. I've outlined the timeline I've established in the attachmentA, and a copy of the news report of Colin Barnett's retirement announcement at AttachmentB.
As I mentioned in my earlier letter,I think these are matters that urgently require investigation by your Commission, to eitheruncover the full story of the links between Mark Creasy and his actions regarding the Cliffe and thesupport he received from Colin Barnett and Michelle Roberts, or to exonerate these electedrepresentatives in this matter.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Brian V,Valdron
42 Brougham Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 [email protected] Phone: (02) 8354 1449 Mobile: 0411 671 064 Attachment A
Russell Barnett and Mark CreasySolbec Pharmaceuticals/Freedom Eye Ltd
Col Barnett and TheCliffe
2003 Russell Barnett wins one of Business News' 40under40 awards
12 Sep 2003 Creasy's Vandal Investment's has a 5.33 per cent stake comprising 6.5 million sharesworth $877,500. (SMH"Sweet time to be building a foundation stake that has been held since Solbec was formed out of Brittania Gold, with the stock trading atnear all-time highs, closing yesterday at 13.5c.")
23 April 2007 Solbec announced capital raising issuing 20 million ordinary shares at 4c/share. The placement to be fully underwritten by Kirke Securities Ltd for a fee of 5%. The rights issue entitled shareholders to apply for 1 new share for every 5 shares held at 3.5cents. The placement issue priced shares at 4 cents. At 3.5 cents, Creasy's July 2007 holding of 12,557,143 shares is worth about $439,500.
Upon completion of both the Placement and Rights Issue, Russell Barnett of Australian Venture Consultants (AVC) and Graeme Kirke of Kirke Securities will each be offereda seat on the board of the Company.
24 July 2007 Russell Barnett appointed to the Board of Solbec Pharmaceuticals
25 July 2007 Creasy's Vandal Investments hold 12,557,143 shares (4.41 % ofcompany Solbec's largest shareholder)
30 Aug 2007 Colin Barnett introduces grievance motion regarding Cliffe into Parliamenton behalf of Mark Creasy
27 Nov 2007 Colin Barnett announced retirement from politics at next election (due 2009)
20 Dec 2007 Antony Kiernan resigns as Solbec Chairman Russell Barnett (Russell previously a director?) acts as interim Chair
42 Brougham Street Woolloomoolod NSW 2011 bnan [email protected] au Phone. (02) 8354 1449 Mobile 0411 671 064 14 Jan 2008 Mark Creasy and Vandal Investments valued at $400 million coming in413 on the inaugural Resource Rich List
26 March 2008 William Ardrey appointed chairman of Solbec. Russell Barnett remainsas director
14 May 2008 Motion to remove Cliffe from Heritage Register moved in the Legislative Assembly byColin Barnett
6 August 2008 Colin Barnett elected leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition
22 Aug 2008 Cliffe removed from Heritage Register
23 Sep 2008 Colin Barnett sworn in as WA Premier
20 Oct 2008 Creasy applies for demolition licence from Peppermint Grove Shire Council. Council approved licence pending heritage report and report from Committeeto be formed on future of the buildings.
16 Nov 2008 - Solbec AGM
® Russell Barnett stands for re-election as director of Solbec, Resolution to increase non-executive remuneration from $100,000to $300,000 to be apportioned by (four) Directors at their discretion
O Resolution to issues up to 5,500,000 shares to Russell Barnett
5 Dec 2008 Following a special resolution to change the Company'sname at the recent annual meeting of shareholders, Solbec Pharmaceuticals Ltd will be listedon ASX, effective today 5 December 2008, as:- Freedom Eye Limited- ASX Code 'FYI'.
9 April 2009 Freedom Eye Ltd shares, $0.005 on the ASX. Russell's 5.5 million shares (if theissue was approved) worth $27,500 (Creasy's Vandal Investment's 12,557,143 worth $62,785.)
42 Brougham Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 bean waldron@iinet net.au Phone (02) 8354 1449 Mobile 0411 671 064 Attachment B Colin Barnett:
ABC NEWS ON-LINE:
Barnett to quit politics
Posted Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:04pm AEDT
The former Liberal Party leader Colin Barnett hasannounced his retirement from politics.
It is understood Mr Barnett told colleagues of his decisionto quit at the next state election, in 2009, at today's party room meeting.
The State Opposition Leader Paul Omodeiwas informed yesterday, that Mr Barnett would not be seeking another term, and had decided to quit theShadow Cabinet immediately. Mr Barnett led the Liberals to the 2005 State Election.
He attracted widespread criticism and ridiculeover his promise to build the Kimberley canal to boost Perth's water supplies.
Mr Barnett was elected to Parliament 17-years-ago andwas a Minister for eight years during the Court era, holding the Education, Energy andResources portfolios.
He says he will not rule out work in the mining industrywhen he leaves politics, but he will continue to work in his electorate for anotheryear.
"I intend to carry on within my electorate, there'sa lot of issues in my electorate at the moment and I would like to do what I can to bring themto a good resolution," he said.
"I will continue to pursue issues that I thinkare important in the Parliament and think more about my future, but I certainly am not retiring Iam simply leaving politics."
Jostling is expected to begin immediately for Mr Barnett'sblue ribbon seat of Cottesloe.
42 Brougham Street Woolloomooloo NSW 2011 [email protected] au Phone (02) 8354 1449 Mobile. 0411 671 064 WIKIPEDIA: Colin Barnett
At the 2005 state election, Barnett, proposed the construction ofa canal from the rivers of the Kimberley Ranges in northern Western Australia to Perth tomeet Perth's growing water supply problem. The proposal was costed by Barnett at $2 billion,however it soon emerged that no feasibility study or detailed costings had been done. Someexperts put the cost as high as AUD $5 billion. The Prime Minister, John Howard, refusedto commit federal funds to the project. He released the policy costings only a few days before the election, whena AUD $200 million error in the costings documentwas discovered. When the Gallop government was returned with its majority intact, Barnett accepted responsibility for the defeat and resigned the Liberal leadership. On 9 March 2005 Liberal MPs electedMatt Birney, the member for Kalgoorlie, as Barnett'ssuccessor.
Following his resignation as leader Barnett remainedon the backbench and in November 2007 announced that he would retire from politics at the next state election,at that stage due by May 2009.
On 4 August 2008, Troy Buswell resigned as Opposition Leader andtwo days later Barnett was re-elected unopposed to the Liberal leadership despite the fact that he had previously announced his retirement and another candidate had been endorsed in his electorate.
On 7 August 2008, Premier Alan Carpenter called an early election for 6 September 2008.
Barnett led the Liberal Party to the election, which saw a significant swingaway from the incumbent Labor Party, leading to a hung parliament. On 14 September 2008, theNational Party agreed to support the Liberal Party as a minority government, and Barnettwas sworn into office on 23 September 2008.
42 Brougham treet woolloomooloo NSW 2011 brian.waldronginet net au Phone (02) 8354 1449 Mobile. 0411 671 064