It has been suggested to me, in the context of otherwise supportive comments on this blog, that the Government's proposals might be 'threadbare' but would meet the requirements of the Act.
So here is my reasoning for stating that the Government's proposals do not meet the requirements of the Act and would therefore be open to successful challenge in the courts.
In the absence of a definition of the term in the Local Government Act, 1995, the first resort would be to the Interpretation Act, 1984 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ia1984191), section 5 of which contains standard definitions for written laws of Western Australia. However, this does not include a definition of the word 'effect(s)'.
In the absence of such a definition, the next resort would be to the Second Reading speech of the appropriate Minister when the Bill was debated by Parliament prior to its being passed into an Act. I must admit I haven't been back and checked this, but I would be very surprised if it dealt with a matter of such detail.
Finally, the issue then comes down to 'common usage' - the 'prevailing and accepted interpretation'. Common usage would be along the lines of 'a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause' - the Government proposals for amalgamations are almost entirely a description of the 'action or other cause' itself.
To the extent that there is any statement of effect, it is contained in just two paragraphs under the heading 'Reason for Making the Proposal'.
The first of these paragraphs is almost word for word the same in all proposals (not just those affecting Vincent) and therefore provides no information specific to the effects of any individual proposal. In any case, statements made are no more than unsubstantiated assertions of potential - the word 'opportunity' keeps cropping up - rather than real and demonstrable effects.
The second paragraph is a combination of description of the action and broad assertion of aspiration - again unsullied by any analysis or real-world support.
From Vincent's perspective, it is critical that this second paragraph fails to mention Vincent at all. The statements, other than the purely descriptive first sentence, are all about the City of Perth. The proposal clearly fails to identify 'effects' on the City of Vincent, its residents and ratepayers.
The problem with this post and the 'To Poll or not to Poll' one is the same.
ReplyDeleteYou simply don't understand statutory interpretation.
The basic rule is that a statute will be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the words used (unless the words have a particular meaning) in their context.
The Interpretation Act has provided that a purposive approach is to be taken in interpretation and a meaning which promotes the objectives of the Act over one which does not.
The Interpretation Act then provides for recourse to extrinsic materials in determining the meaning and intent of the legislation - but this generally offers little assistance.
So - you really need to go back and start your analysis again. The issue isn't whether effect or abolish are defined - it is what do the words mean in their ordinary sense in the context of the legislation.
Did you read this post - or just have a knee-jerk reaction?
ReplyDeleteRead it again and tell me what the 'ordinary meaning' of effects is if not what I have stated.