Description

In this week's episode, Nick Marouchak clarifies that landowners are typically fully responsible for fences bordering Crown land used for public purposes, as advised to Rick whose fence was damaged. John queries about an interview request from the Insurance Commission of WA regarding his daughter's pedestrian accident, and Nick advises that it's voluntary unless subpoenaed and suggests requesting questions in writing. Rob seeks guidance on compelling his neighbour to pay their half of a damaged fence; Nick outlines the formal procedure under the Dividing Fences Act, including written notice and potential Magistrates Court action. Anton asks about the legality of a 12-year-old daughter's bedroom camera at her father's house; Nick explains it could be a breach of the Surveillance Devices Act if hidden or against consent, recommending written communication and potential Family Court intervention. Finally, the discussion touches upon the McCusker report into the WA election, noting that inadequate staffing, rather than Purcell Kelly's performance, was the primary issue, though their recruitment practices were criticized, and the possibility of the government terminating or not renewing their contract is explored.

Topics Discussed:

Fence responsibility Crown land

Compelling neighbour to pay fence

Dividing Fences Act procedure

Bedroom camera legality issues

Child's consent for recording

Family Court intervention for cameras

WA election report findings

Electoral Commission staffing issues

Purcell Kelly contract status