.
Wednesday 23 September 2015
UPDATE: Draft Hansard available.
The draft Hansard record of today's debate on the City of Perth Bill is in two parts and can be downloaded from http://parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/50f05f45f5b5442948257ec90036103a/$FILE/A39+S1+20150923+p5b-17a.pdf and http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/ffe04193eeb84ebe48257ec900361703/$FILE/A39+S1+20150923+p27d-38a.pdf
CoP Bill Debate Under Way
Wednesday 23 September saw the first day of debate on the City of Perth Bill in the Legislative Assembly. We'll post the Hansard here when it's available (draft should be available tonight).
Key points from the debate so far.
David Templeman (ALP, Mandurah. Opposition spokesperson on local government). Main issue is clause 37, which allows Government or City of Perth to claim Burswood. Serious questions about Kings Park and Executive Director Public Health and the proposed City of Perth Committee.
Ben Wyatt (ALP, Victoria Park). Slams Government for previous shambolic 'reform'. Argues that clause 37 is there to allow Premier to put Burswood into City of Perth despite demonstrated and overwhelming community opposition.
Dave Kelly (ALP, Bassendean). Premier wanted Vincent in City of Perth but only with gerrymander to ensure business domination. Vincent people objected. Describes clause 37 as 'legislative spaghetti', obscure, ambiguous, complicated, contentious and trojan horse to achieve Premier's will.
Terry Redman (Warren-Blackwood, Leader of the National Party). National Party is not against local government reform but will oppose this Bill on the grounds of forced amalgamation. [Note: This is the first time the Nationals have used the word 'oppose' as distinct from 'not support' - the latter being ambiguous as it could simply mean abstain.]
Mark McGowan (Leader, ALP, Rockingham). Really had a go at Barnett on the City of Perth Bill being the last vestige of local government reform fiasco. However, he stated that the Opposition's sticking point was clause 37
Vince Catania (National, North West Central) said that only the Nationals have a consistent policy on local government reform and this reflects the views of regional WA communities. The National Party will maintain that consistent policy. Local councils and communities deserve better from both Government and Opposition.
Debate was adjourned for the day with Rita Saffioti (ALP, West Swan) speaking. She will resume speaking when the debate is resumed - presumably tomorrow (Thursday 24th September).
In summary, the Nationals oppose the Bill, on the basis of the forced changes for residents of Subiaco. ALP opposes on the basis that Clause 37 opens the gate for Burswood to be moved to City of Perth and has some other substantial questions - but could support the Bill if Cl 37 removed and questions answered to its satisfaction.
If ALP and Nationals vote against and one Liberal crosses the floor, the votes will be tied 29 for and 29 against. Does the Speaker have a casting vote - and how would he use it? The Speaker should be aware of Denison's Rule.
Denison's rule is a convention, derived from the UK and the House of Commons, that the Speaker's casting vote should always be in favour of further debate or, where no further debate is possible, to vote in favour of the status quo. The principle behind the convention is that change should only occur if an actual majority is in favour of that change.
Denison's rule is a guiding principle also in many non-parliamentary bodies that have neutral chairpersons.
Key points from the debate so far.
David Templeman (ALP, Mandurah. Opposition spokesperson on local government). Main issue is clause 37, which allows Government or City of Perth to claim Burswood. Serious questions about Kings Park and Executive Director Public Health and the proposed City of Perth Committee.
Ben Wyatt (ALP, Victoria Park). Slams Government for previous shambolic 'reform'. Argues that clause 37 is there to allow Premier to put Burswood into City of Perth despite demonstrated and overwhelming community opposition.
Dave Kelly (ALP, Bassendean). Premier wanted Vincent in City of Perth but only with gerrymander to ensure business domination. Vincent people objected. Describes clause 37 as 'legislative spaghetti', obscure, ambiguous, complicated, contentious and trojan horse to achieve Premier's will.
Terry Redman (Warren-Blackwood, Leader of the National Party). National Party is not against local government reform but will oppose this Bill on the grounds of forced amalgamation. [Note: This is the first time the Nationals have used the word 'oppose' as distinct from 'not support' - the latter being ambiguous as it could simply mean abstain.]
Mark McGowan (Leader, ALP, Rockingham). Really had a go at Barnett on the City of Perth Bill being the last vestige of local government reform fiasco. However, he stated that the Opposition's sticking point was clause 37
Vince Catania (National, North West Central) said that only the Nationals have a consistent policy on local government reform and this reflects the views of regional WA communities. The National Party will maintain that consistent policy. Local councils and communities deserve better from both Government and Opposition.
Debate was adjourned for the day with Rita Saffioti (ALP, West Swan) speaking. She will resume speaking when the debate is resumed - presumably tomorrow (Thursday 24th September).
In summary, the Nationals oppose the Bill, on the basis of the forced changes for residents of Subiaco. ALP opposes on the basis that Clause 37 opens the gate for Burswood to be moved to City of Perth and has some other substantial questions - but could support the Bill if Cl 37 removed and questions answered to its satisfaction.
If ALP and Nationals vote against and one Liberal crosses the floor, the votes will be tied 29 for and 29 against. Does the Speaker have a casting vote - and how would he use it? The Speaker should be aware of Denison's Rule.
Denison's rule is a convention, derived from the UK and the House of Commons, that the Speaker's casting vote should always be in favour of further debate or, where no further debate is possible, to vote in favour of the status quo. The principle behind the convention is that change should only occur if an actual majority is in favour of that change.
 |
| http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p09.pdf |
Monday 21 September 2015
ALP Fires The First Shot
With the City of Perth Bill high on the notice paper for the Legislative Assembly this week, the ALP has broken its silence and fired the first shot (excuse the mixed metaphors).
In saying it will not support clause 37 of the Bill, which facilitates City of Perth takeover of adjoining areas, including Burswood and the commercial areas of Vincent and Subiaco, the ALP is reflecting concerns expressed by all neighbouring councils.
But the City of Perth Bill is far more flawed than this opening salvo suggests. South Perth, Subiaco, Nedlands and Claremont Councils have passed more far-reaching resolutions effectively calling for the City of Perth Bill to be abandoned or defeated because it is so fundamentally flawed.
And the 3000 residents of Subiaco who the Bill would forcibly shift into the City of Perth wouldn't be too pleased about the ALP "support[ing] expanding Perth's boundaries", although that could be a ploy to get Barnett to accept removal of clause 37 (potential future expansion) in order to get expansion now.
However, there are many, many more reasons to oppose the City of Perth Bill (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/why-city-of-perth-bill-is-fatally-flawed.html) - it doesn't all hinge on boundaries.
In saying it will not support clause 37 of the Bill, which facilitates City of Perth takeover of adjoining areas, including Burswood and the commercial areas of Vincent and Subiaco, the ALP is reflecting concerns expressed by all neighbouring councils.
But the City of Perth Bill is far more flawed than this opening salvo suggests. South Perth, Subiaco, Nedlands and Claremont Councils have passed more far-reaching resolutions effectively calling for the City of Perth Bill to be abandoned or defeated because it is so fundamentally flawed.
And the 3000 residents of Subiaco who the Bill would forcibly shift into the City of Perth wouldn't be too pleased about the ALP "support[ing] expanding Perth's boundaries", although that could be a ploy to get Barnett to accept removal of clause 37 (potential future expansion) in order to get expansion now.
However, there are many, many more reasons to oppose the City of Perth Bill (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/why-city-of-perth-bill-is-fatally-flawed.html) - it doesn't all hinge on boundaries.
 |
| http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-21/wa-opposition-threatens-to-block-city-of-perth-boundary-expansi/6792922 |
What Our Capital City Really Needs
In an earlier post (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/why-city-of-perth-bill-is-fatally-flawed.html) we set out the reasons why all of us should be very concerned about the Government's attempt to foist an ill-thought-out and fatally-flawed City of Perth Bill on us in the name of creating a great capital city for WA.
We are aware that simply expressing our concerns will be taken by some as being negative, but in fact we support the creation of a more effective capital city for Western Australia. The current Bill, however, is so flawed that we believe it should be withdrawn or defeated and something better put in its place.
We are aware that simply expressing our concerns will be taken by some as being negative, but in fact we support the creation of a more effective capital city for Western Australia. The current Bill, however, is so flawed that we believe it should be withdrawn or defeated and something better put in its place.
As a positive contribution to this, the CCCC has developed a framework document for a capital city (attached), which we respectfully request that you consider when responding to the current Bill. The first part of our document reviews practice in all Australian state Capital Cities (no two cities are the same). The last page and a half sets out what we consider to be the essential principles and legislative requirements for a truly great capital city, including involvement of all stakeholders, openness and accountability, and establishment of a means for effective implementation of agreed policies, strategies and plans.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Sunday 20 September 2015
Why The City of Perth Bill Is Fatally Flawed
We have previously summarised our concerns about the City of Perth Bill (http://capitalcitycitizenscommittee.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/dangers-for-all-local-governments.html) but have refrained from setting out our full arguments until we had been able to talk with as many members of State Parliament as possible.
We also mailed and emailed our detailed documentation to MLAs over the past few weeks.
It now seems likely that the City of Perth Bill will be debated in the Legislative Assembly this week, so it is appropriate to bring our concerns to the attention of a wider audience.
We also mailed and emailed our detailed documentation to MLAs over the past few weeks.
It now seems likely that the City of Perth Bill will be debated in the Legislative Assembly this week, so it is appropriate to bring our concerns to the attention of a wider audience.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)