Latest news with #LegislativeCouncil
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Bill finally regulating subdivided flats in Hong Kong calls for speedy passage
It is four years since Beijing's top official overseeing Hong Kong affairs called on the city to get rid of its notorious subdivided flats by 2049. Xia Baolong happened to be on an inspection tour of the city when the government finally outlined proposed legislation next month to regulate them. That it has taken this long says something about the complexity of reconciling so many people's needs for shelter with a decent standard of housing. Advertisement This is a step in the right direction of finally eradicating substandard housing infamous for its shoebox size, poor hygiene and safety hazards. Under the bill, expected to pass before the end of the current Legislative Council term in October, the authorities plan to enforce the new laws from 2027, plus a three-year grace period, with landlords able to register their subdivided flats for compliance with official standards as early as March next year. The government is to be commended for taking a pragmatic approach to an emotive issue for both landlords and tenants. Definition is important. Thanks to media-fuelled perceptions, subdivided flats are all overcrowded, unhygienic and unsafe homes. Defining characteristics include less than 80 sq ft of living space, and lack of a separate toilet and an external window. But there are better-quality examples and a market demand for them, in common with some other countries, including Japan. It would not take much to bring them up to standard. Advertisement To make the regulation work, the authorities had allowed a grace period beyond 2027 of three years, a Housing Bureau spokesman said. There would be relief from accreditation fees for early registration.
Sky News AU
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
NSW Premier Chris Minns staffers facing potential arrests after skipping major inquiry into Dural explosives
Three of New South Wales Premier Chris Minns staffers could potentially be arrested after they failed to show up to a major inquiry into a 'fabricated terrorist plot' on the outskirts of Sydney. On Friday, five NSW government staffers, including three senior staff members of the Premier, snubbed a hearing of an inquiry looking into an incident in January when explosives were found in a caravan in Dural. Chair of the inquiry Rod Roberts expressed disappointment when the five staffers, who had been summoned to attend, failed to appear. 'The committee will now consider further action in relation to these witnesses,' Mr Roberts said on Friday, according to The Daily Telegraph. 'The committee seeks to question ministerial staff about who was present at the briefings held by the NSW Police, what was discussed and what records were kept', Mr Roberts said regarding the Dural caravan incident, the masthead reported. According to the NSW Parliamentary Evidence Act, any person who is not a member of the Legislative Council or Assembly can be summoned to attend and provide evidence at parliamentary hearings. Failure to attend without reasonable excuse can result in a certificate being sent to a judge of the Supreme Court, who has the power to then issue a warrant for the person's arrest. Mr Minns previously confirmed he is refusing to appear at the Dural caravan inquiry himself, citing time constraints and his lack of availability to attend such hearings. The Premier claimed the inquiry is a 'giant conspiracy' when he spoke to 2GB Sydney radio host Ben Fordham on Tuesday morning. 'It rests on the premise that the Dural caravan case was not a threat to the community... that we knew about the circumstances relating to the case from the very beginning, which is not true,' Mr Minns told the radio host. 'And lastly, that we used that circumstance to push through vilification laws to prevent antisemitism or try and confront antisemitism in the community. It's a giant conspiracy.' The inquiry comes months after a caravan with explosives, which was initially feared to trigger a mass casualty event, was discovered in Sydney's northwest on January 19. Australian Federal Deputy Commissioner Krissy Barrett told media in January that investigators 'almost immediately' realised the explosives were part of a 'fabricated terrorist plot'. 'I can reveal the caravan was never going to cause a mass casualty event but instead was concocted by criminals who wanted to cause fear for personal benefit,' the Deputy Commissioner said. Public Service Association (PSA) general secretary Stewart Little has chimed in on the hearing snub controversy, blasting the NSW upper house over the investigation. "Our members shouldn't be pawns in parliamentary parlour games with upper house MPs posturing to get media coverage," Mr Little said in a statement on Thursday. "If upper house MPs want to know the facts they need to concentrate on getting the Premier to appear before them, or the relevant Ministers.' Mr Little criticised the move to summon the staffers to the inquiry, calling it 'the pits'. '... Drag in ministers or the senior departmental heads by all means, but junior public servants and parliamentary staffers have no bearing or consequence or meaning on the political process,' the general secretary said.
ABC News
21 hours ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Dural caravan inquiry committee explore arrest warrants for NSW staffers over failure to give evidence
Five New South Wales government staffers face possible arrest warrants after defying a summons and not appearing before an Upper House inquiry into the Sydney Dural caravan plot. The five staffers asked to be excused from Friday's hearing in a letter, after being summonsed to give evidence about what and when the state government knew about the plot, after the caravan was found laden with explosives in January amid a spate of antisemitic vandalism. The ABC understands the committee will go to the president of the Legislative Council Ben Franklin to ask if he could request arrest warrants in the NSW Supreme Court. NSW Premier Minns had flagged the staffers — some of who worked for him — would not give evidence on Thursday, calling the inquiry into what the state government did or did not know about the alleged plot a "star chamber". At the state parliament's Macquarie Room on Friday morning, committee members waited to see if the five staffers would turn up, with their empty chairs carefully labelled. Inquiry chair and independent MP Rod Roberts said he was disappointed the witnesses had not turned up, describing it as a "very serious matter" and saying further action will be considered. "I am disappointed in the government's continued efforts to hinder and frustrate the work of this committee and ultimately the role of the legislative council to scrutinise the actions of government." Mr Roberts concluded the hearing with a short statement about the intention behind the staffers being summonsed to appear. "This committee was established to determine whether members of parliament debated and passed hate speech and protest laws through parliament based on misleading or incomplete information." During the committee, Mr Roberts revealed a letter dated June 19 undersigned by staffers and asking to be excused from appearing was received on Thursday. In the letter, the staffers said their giving evidence before the select committee would "be at odds with the principles of ministerial accountability and comity between the House of Parliament". The letter also stated that a separate parliamentary inquiry could also consider the compulsion of ministerial staff to give evidence, suggesting it infringed parliamentary privileged "or otherwise offends principles of our Westminster system of government". The letter ends with the request to be excused from the hearing. Mr Roberts told the hearing he objected to the arguments made in the letter. "It is a fundamental role of the Upper House to hold the government of the day to account." Before concluding the hearing, Mr Roberts said the witnesses scheduled to appear had failed to comply with the summons. The committee is believed to be considering its next step.
Perth Now
a day ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Arrest threat over inquiry no-shows
The threat of arrest now hangs over five of NSW Premier Chris Minns' top advisers after they refused to front a parliamentary inquiry investigating a suspected terror plot. The five senior ministerial staffers failed to appear before a NSW parliamentary inquiry this morning, prompting the chair of the committee to flag 'further action' in what is fast becoming a major constitutional standoff over executive accountability. The Legislative Council inquiry, chaired by independent MLC Rod Roberts, commenced at 10.45am on Friday but was forced to adjourn for 30 minutes after none of the five summoned witnesses, senior advisers to Premier Chris Minns and Police Minister Yasmin Catley, arrived. Hon Rod Roberts formally acknowledged the no-show and delivered a lengthy statement criticising the government's ongoing resistance to the inquiry. NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia The hearing was ultimately abandoned without a vote, after Chair Roberts formally acknowledged the no-show and delivered a lengthy statement criticising the government's ongoing resistance to the inquiry. 'I am disappointed in the government's continued efforts to hinder and frustrate the work of this committee, and ultimately, the role of the Legislative Council to scrutinise the actions of government,' Mr Roberts said. 'The committee will now consider further action in relation to these witnesses under section 7 through 9 of the Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901.' Those summoned included Mr Minns' chief of staff, James Cullen; two senior advisers from the Premier's office, Edward Ovadia and Sarah Michael; and two staffers from Minister Catley's office, Dr Tilly South and Ross Neilson. Their appearance was meant to shed light on who in government knew what, and when, regarding the discovery of an explosives-laden caravan in Sydney's northwest in January. James Cullen, Chief of Staff for Premier Chris Minns, is one of five who were summoned. Picture by Max Mason-Hubers Credit: News Corp Australia The Premier had previously described the incident as a potential 'mass casualty event'. Although the Australian Federal Police later determined it was part of a criminal conspiracy. The circumstances surrounding the government's response, and whether MPs passed sweeping anti-hate laws in February based on incomplete information, remain under intense scrutiny. A letter sent to the committee chair on Thursday and signed by the five staffers outlined their refusal to appear. They argued that attending would breach 'the principles of ministerial accountability and comity between the Houses of Parliament,' particularly while a separate privileges inquiry by the Legislative Assembly is ongoing. The group also took aim at Mr Roberts' earlier media comments, writing: 'Given your comments on breakfast radio yesterday as to the motivation for issuing the summonses, – which make it clear we are 'proxies' because our respective Ministers cannot be compelled as witnesses to the Select Committee – we also consider that they have not been properly issued,' the letter read. 'In light of the above, we invite you not to press for our attendance at the hearing tomorrow.' NSW Premier Chris Minns had previously described the incident as a potential 'mass casualty event'. Although the Australian Federal Police later determined it was part of a criminal conspiracy. Photo: NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia Mr Roberts rejected those arguments in his closing statement, asserting the inquiry is properly constituted and that ministerial staff are not exempt from appearing. 'The inquiry seeks to examine the actions of the executive, not members of the Legislative Assembly,' he said. 'The committee is not seeking to sanction ministerial staff for their actions, only to shed lights on the events in the lead-up to the passage of the hate speech and protest laws through parliament. 'The power of committees to summon witnesses and compel them to attend and give evidence is in black and white in the Parliamentary Evidence Act. It is not in doubt.' Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig has previously condemned the inquiry as 'an incursion upon the privilege' of the Legislative Assembly. 'It expressly seeks to scrutinise the discourse of the House, the conduct of its members, be it backbencher or a member of the executive government, while undertaking the primary function entrusted upon them by their constituents which is to legislate,' Mr Hoenig said during Question Time in May. He argued the Legislative Council had overstepped its bounds by summoning ministerial staff and attempting to examine lower house proceedings. Mr Roberts rejected the witnesses arguments, asserting the inquiry is properly constituted and that ministerial staff are not exempt from appearing. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia Despite the controversy, the Legislative Assembly passed a motion 47 to 27 to refer the inquiry's terms to the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics. In response, Mr Roberts amended the inquiry's terms to narrow its focus to the passage of relevant bills through the upper house. Mr Hoenig, however, insisted the changes 'did not go far enough'. Opposition MP Alister Henskens said the amendments were sufficient to avoid breaching privilege and labelled the referral motion 'a transparent attempt to frustrate and delay the upper house inquiry'. Greens MP Jenny Leong said it was 'critical' that the Legislative Council was not prevented from doing its work, warning that any 'unreasonable delay' would raise concerns about the Premier and executive trying to 'subvert' the inquiry. Speaker Greg Piper defended the committee's progression, saying the changes were not intended to obstruct but instead 'an opportunity to actually examine the issue, the rights and privilege, the exclusive cognisance of the Legislative Assembly'. The committee has previously heard from senior police officials, including NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb and Deputy Commissioner David Hudson. With Friday's hearing abandoned and potential legal action looming, the inquiry is now at a crossroads.
HKFP
a day ago
- Business
- HKFP
Hong Kong proposes registration of subdivided flats from March 2026 to phase out ‘substandard' living spaces
Hong Kong has proposed registering subdivided flats as part of its 'basic housing units' scheme from March 2026, as it seeks to phase out 'substandard' living spaces that fail to meet government-set minimum living standards. The government said on Thursday it aimed to see the bill for setting up the regulatory scheme pass the Legislative Council (LegCo) within this year, according to a document submitted to LegCo. Hong Kong has about 110,000 subdivided units that house about 220,000 residents, authorities estimate. NGOs have long called attention to the cramped living spaces and poor fire safety standards in some subdivided units. During last year's policy address, Chief Executive John Lee introduced the basic housing units framework to phase out below-standard subdivided units. Under the framework, a subdivided unit must be registered with the government and have undergone the necessary fixes to be recognised as a basic housing unit, before it can be rented out legally. 'Subject to the progress of the legislative exercise and relevant preparatory work, the registration system will commence in March 2026,' the document read. 'The period for making applications for registration… will be set as 12 months which is in line with the public expectation to urge the market to improve the living conditions of [subdivided units] as soon as possible,' the document continued. HK$3,000 application fee After registering their subdivided flats, landlords have a three-year grace period to complete the necessary fixes as part of the government's requirements. Then, they must apply for the recognition of their properties as basic housing units. Each new application is proposed to cost HK$3,000, according to the government. The recognition will be valid for five years. But to encourage landlords to improve the quality of their subdivided flats sooner rather than later, the authorities plan to waive the fee for the first two-and-a-half-year period after March 2026, the government suggested. In the following six months after that, the government will charge HK$1,500 – half price – for each application. The full HK$3,000 fee will only be charged starting from the scheme's fourth year. A basic housing unit must be at least eight square-metres in size and at least 2.3 metres in height. Besides size conditions, it must also have an independent toilet, among other requirements relating to fire and structural safety. Under the proposal, renting out subdivided units without valid registration and recognition as a basic housing unit will become an offence from March 2027. The maximum penalty will be three years behind bars and a fine of up to HK$300,000, with an extra daily HK$20,000 penalty for the entire duration of the offence. Failure to comply with a rectification notice issued by the government or providing false or misleading information will be punished by up to two years in jail and a fine of up to HK$100,000, with an extra daily HK$10,000 fine for the duration of the offence. If a landlord does not notify the authorities of changes to a basic housing unit that would make it fail to meet the required standards, they could be fined up to HK$25,000, in addition to an extra daily fine of HK$700.
