Rinehart peace bid in family trust row AUSTRALIA'S richest person, Gina Rinehart, has extended an olive branch to her two oldest children in an attempt to end the two-year dispute over the family's multi-billion-dollar trust fund. However, Mrs Rinehart's offer to allow the appointment of a "co-trustee" to the Hope Margaret Hancock Trust looks unlikely to placate John Hancock and Bianca Rinehart, whose lawyers spent yesterday fighting to have their mother removed as trustee. Mrs Rinehart's barrister, David Russell QC, told the NSW Supreme Court yesterday of an "open letter" offering Mr Hancock and Ms Rinehart a means to end the family dispute that began in September 2011. It said "the first defendant would be willing to appoint a co-trustee" to the family trust, believed to be worth almost $4 billion. Judge Patricia Bergin described the letter as "a very big step" because the litigation had been "going on for years." Christopher Withers, acting for Mr Hancock and Mrs Rinehart, told the court the offer "was a step" but that they would need time to consider the letter. Mr Hancock told The Australian he could not see how his mother could stay in her role as trustee given the seriousness of the allegations, but he was not in a position to evaluate the offer yet. "A trustee could hardly remain in any capacity in view of the claims of past serious misconduct that may require further action, but we haven't seen any detail of the proposal," he said last night. It is unclear whether Mrs Rinehart suggested another person be appointed to govern the trust alongside her, or that two new trustees be appointed. Mr Hancock has previously nominated as trustees himself and South Australian businessman Bruce Carter. The two oldest children of Australia's wealthiest person are trying to get their mother removed, alleging she failed to act honestly and in good faith, exercised her powers for an ulterior and improper purpose, had conflicting interests and failed to provide adequate information about the trust. Mrs Rinehart's other children, Ginia Rinehart and Hope Welker, have sided with her in the dispute. Yesterday, Mr Withers succeeded in obtaining from Mrs Rinehart's lawyers correspondence from July 10 between the billionaire and PricewaterhouseCoopers on the possible capital gains tax liability of the children upon the vesting of the trust. Mrs Rinehart wrote to her children on September 3, 2011, just three days before the trust vested, claiming the "vesting of the trust and the consequent tax liability that would result would therefore lead to the bankruptcy of each beneficiary." Later advice from PwC and the tax office demonstrated no such liability would have existed as long as the children did not choose to immediately take possession of their shares in Mrs Rinehart's flagship company, Hancock Prospecting. Mr Withers was chasing all communications between Mrs Rinehart and PwC dating back from their initial retainer with her in July 2010, arguing the "communications will shed light on . . . exactly when the first defendant knew about the tax liability." Mr Russell described the attempt as a "fishing exercise" but Justice Bergin allowed the application as long as it was restricted to correspondence between Mrs Rinehart and PwC discussing the tax liability question. The matter returns to court on September 10.