Premier Ewart Brown lashed out at the Corporation of Hamilton's "arrogance" as he angrily insisted Government is fully capable of doing jobs done for years by the municipality.

"They say the trash is going to build up. And what is Government going to do? Nothing?" asked the Premier at the beginning of a marathon debate on the Municipalities Reform Act yesterday.

He was responding to claims Hamilton will lose some of the services traditionally provided by the Corporation because the bill will leave it so strapped for cash. "Am I hearing that Minster [Derrick] Burgess could not get done in Hamilton what he does everywhere else on the Island? I hope that's not what I'm hearing," he told the House of Assembly.

Dr. Brown also hit back at the Corporation's media campaign, describing it alarmist and saying there would be a minimal effect on the community.

"In the daily newspaper, there was a listing of activities the Corporation said would be in jeopardy. On the top of that list was Bermuda Day.

"A national holiday, celebrated throughout the Island in different ways, the Corporation says will be in jeopardy. That is the height of arrogance. "It shows you the Corporation has not found its proper place. There will be a Bermuda day whether the Corporation is there or not."

Responding to the label "the Brown/DeSilva bill", he said: "To personalise such a major issue, it's just the division man rearing his ugly head again. We should try to stay focused, but there is a resistance based not on what was said, but who said it."

He said such conflict has arisen every time there's been a debate on issues of authority. "Every time we come to it, not sometimes, but every time that issues of authority are approached in this House, we could make a tape recording because we hear the same people saying the same things," the Premier said.

"How did we get to the point in 2010 that we are debating a government in a government? An authority on a small piece of Bermuda that can counter the aims, the desires of the rest of Bermuda? Unearned privilege must be eliminated. It has no place."

Some had suggested Deputy Premier Paula Cox may not favour the proposal because it could land her with a messy legal battle in the early days of her likely Premiership. But Ms Cox showed she was very much in support. She said while there had been "a lot of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth" there has to be "levelling of the playing field".

She urged complainers to "get real" and said politicians have to act responsibly if they want respect and stop demonising the Government. The Finance Minister said an independent audit of the corporations would "draw a line in the sand" and "make things crystal clear" as part of the reform process. And she said the current "absence of a democratic structure" is not good for city residents. She denied that a "land grab" or "asset strip" was planned by Government and said: "You don't have to portray us as bogeymen, it doesn't serve the city well or the people well."

Backbencher Terry Lister, who was said to be instrumental in stalling the legislation at PLP caucus earlier this month, also spoke, explaining why the bill has his support. Mr. Lister told the House how there had been concern that been initial Government was going to strip the Corporations.

"Anyone who felt the Corporations had a role to play — I'm certainly one — would have felt very concerned that they were going to be stripped. The amount of frustration and concern made sense. But as you go through a process, sensible people talk and act and you get closer together."

Reflecting on the bill, he said: "We don't have a shutdown of the Corporations; we don't have a repeal of the old act; we don't see Corporations being pushed to the side. What we do see is fundamental change taking place. Is the Corporation about to end? No. Changes are going to take place: yes."

Mr. Lister suggested if the same legislation had been on the table two years ago, it would have passed with much less fuss. He said he values the city being clean and attractive and Government would not bring any legislation to allow it to be denigrated. "I'm going to vote for change; I'm going to vote for progress; I'm going to vote for tomorrow," he said.

Minister without Portfolio Zane DeSilva had opened the debate by claiming Government is "taking over nothing".

But launching the United Bermuda Party's reply, leader Kim Swan pointed to the municipalities' impending loss of millions of dollars in wharfage and ports dues. "This bill impacts on the Corporation of Hamilton specifically, when you consider that by virtue of particular clauses more than 40 percent of their revenues will be directly impacted by this legislation," Mr. Swan said.

Mr. Swan said the fall in revenue would have an impact on jobs. The St. George's West MP was also unhappy the bill was debated just seven days after Mr. DeSilva tabled it, with politicians and the public having been kept in the dark about its intentions for months. He said Mr. DeSilva had claimed the bill aimed to tackle a lack of transparency and fairness — yet had shunned those principles himself by avoiding consultation.

Mr. Swan commented on the protests outside the House, saying: "We have certainly seen an expression of concern from many in the community."

He called for Government not to hurry the bill and give the public an chance to understand and discuss it. "What could it hurt the Government to slow down? We would have the opportunity to go into the community and give this bill full scrutiny."

However, the suggestion didn't impress Dr. Brown, who called: "That ain't happening. Try something else."

And Mr. Swan's attempt to stave off the bill for six months was duly voted down 13 to 11.

Bermuda Democratic Alliance MP Mark Pettingill also attacked the Corporation for personalising the bill, something he felt led to the chanting of "coward" at Mr. DeSilva at lunch time.

"When we personalise the issue, when we run ads and call it the Brown/DeSilva bill, you whip up people emotionally," he said."I saw 200 white people of privilege on the hill, and maybe two or three workers. I had one young woman tell me that what she saw was the last of the 40 Thieves kicking and screaming into the 21st century. We will never heal until these people get it and reform."

While he said all parties seemed to agree reform was needed, the lawyer called for thought to be given to ensure that nobody would lose their right to vote. "Cities have special needs," he said. "We don't want to take the vote away from any people who arguably have the right to it."

He also suggested instead of outright stopping the Corporations from being able to charge wharfage, the municipalities be given budgeted submissions. "It would be like any other department," he said. "It's not a difficult thing to put in, but if we had that, I think we would all be on a very good page."

Shadow Works Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin rejected Mr. Pettingill's statement that there were only a few workers involved in the protest, but agreed that business owners should retain their right to vote.

"Everyone who lives in a municipality should have the right to vote there," she said. "I have no problems with that, but those who contribute heavily to the city are being left out. I am not supportive of the idea of people paying taxes to the Corporations and not getting a chance to vote. Taxation without representation cannot be right."

She also expressed doubt that so much could be cut from the Corporation's revenue without affecting the services they provide, and in turn the people who live and work there. She said: "If you can reduce revenue by 40 percent and still provide all of the services, I would like to know how."

Mrs. Gordon Pamplin said the bill would kill the corporations through a "death of a thousand paper cuts".

She said: "Rather than tax them to death directly, they're cutting the revenue so it dies a natural death, but who suffers in the process? The way I see it, you're looking at the Corporation as a cash cow. The Government looks at it as a way of balancing its books."

Wayne Furbert of the PLP complained that, like Mr. DeSilva, he got abuse at a rally against the reforms earlier in the day. Mr. Furbert, the former UBP leader who now represents the PLP, said one protester told him they would not come to his café any more. He added some people have not come to his café since he quit the UBP. "Why are we like this? I tried very hard while I was in the UBP to improve that, and what I saw this afternoon was unacceptable. This was a group that used to praise and lift me up, made me (UBP) leader," he lamented.

Mr. Furbert vowed he would win his seat again at the next election, no matter who the UBP fields in his constituency, even if it is Grant Gibbons or Mr. Swan. He went on: "I'm tired and sick and tired of how, because you make a change, people treat you different. I fought hard against that and I will fight hard against it again."

Giving his views on the proposed reforms, Mr. Furbert noted: "Change is very uncomfortable, we know it."

He said the reforms are long overdue, as they have been discussed for over 30 years. He dismissed the Corporation campaign as "not the truth" and "misinformation." And he objected to the use of the word "takeover."

"Do you know what a takeover is? This Government is not taking over the Corporations," he said.

Shadow Education Minister Grant Gibbons stressed his party is not opposed to broadening the franchise, but is against the way Government has gone about the reforms. He said there should have been meaningful discussions after the Corporations submitted reform proposals three years ago and MPs should have been given more than a week since the bill was tabled to discuss it.

That, he said, is why the UBP believes the move is "destructive". He said of Mr. Pettingill's speech: "Once I got past the self righteousness, I had to say 'maybe he's making some good points here'."

Dr. Gibbons said the UBP "would look very favourably on his proposal". He said while $7 to $8 million charged by the Corporation in wharfage each year does increase the cost of goods coming in, it's a "minuscule" percentage of the final price in the shops, as opposed to the $230 to $235 million raked in via Customs duty. He questioned whether Government intends to make up the $7 to $8 million, bearing in mind the economic challenges. If not, he said the Corporation would have to reduce wages and overtime or services could be cut.

At this point, Dr. Brown called across the floor: "If it can be managed, we'll manage it."

However, the Premier went on to say the Corporation would not have discussions with Government when it was approached. Dr. Gibbons responded: "C'mon this is the kind of stuff that should have been sorted out ahead of time."

Dr. Brown then interjected with a point of order, complaining that Dr. Gibbons was misleading the House. "For the record, this Government, through our consultants, reached out to the Corporation of Hamilton on more than one occasion, in fact numerous occasions, and in each instance they refused to cooperate. They refused to provide information."

He went on: "So the Government did make an effort and the public deserves to know that we did make an effort to talk. We are a democratic and reasonable Government."

Continuing his speech, Dr Gibbons questioned why the Government would not accept the audit of the Corporation that is done by KPMG, and wants to do another. "Would KPMG make up numbers? Would they falsify?" he asked.

Turning to Government complaints that the Corporation wants to develop the waterfront to the exclusion of the current Government, Dr. Gibbons said that was "silly," as the Corporation could not do anything without planning permission.

Telecommunications Minister Michael Scott said Mr. Pettingill made an "excellent speech," but criticised Corporation administrations for failing to reform before. "This model is old, it's ancient. It doesn't work," he said.

Shadow Finance Minister Bob Richards agreed the act is "totally antiquated and out of date." He said his party supported reforming the franchise but not "the money side" of the bill regarding wharfage and taxation.

He said the Corporation of Hamilton developed and owned the docks and has a right to the money that flows from them. He said he wanted more time "to work on this franchise thing" to find something that worked. However, he said the money side "is just bad legislation."

Shawn Crockwell of the BDA said he had suffered a "personal dilemma" over whether to back the bill or not, and his party had been up until midnight in caucus discussing it. Mr. Crockwell said there was no question that reform was needed, and his heart wanted to support the bill.

He said he was concerned about the demonstration that had taken place, and "if individuals had taken my advice, there would have been no demonstration". He said the issue must be looked at in its historical context, and taken into consideration.

"We know that the Corporation has had a bias towards white business interests in our city, that is an unfortunate feature of our history," he said.

However, he said he and his party colleagues had a duty to scrutinise the legislation. Mr. Crockwell said it wasn't right that votes should be completely taken away from businesses. "It cures one inequity but creates another," he said. And he said if the Corporations own the docks they should have a right to some of the wharfage fees.

Veteran UBP MP John Barritt spoke at length about the bickering between the parties he believes leads to bad feeling in the community.

He complained about only being given a week to analyse the bill and said at one point he felt like tearing it into little pieces. However, he said this would have been childish and disrespectful.

Mr. Barritt said he would have liked to hear more background about the direction Government is taking over the Corporations. He said he felt like the legislation had been muscled in, so people shouldn't be surprised that there's push-back, adding that it seemed to be rushed through before the summer. Giving his thoughts on the real reason behind the bill, Mr. Barritt said: "Government is creating some leverage so they can go back to the table and have the Corporations dance to their tune."

Dr. Brown, who repeatedly picked faults with Mr. Barritt from across the floor, changed tack when the UBP MP made a jibe about leaks in the PLP ranks. "That's a fair shot at us. That's a fair shot he just took. Cool," agreed the Premier.

Next up was Health Minister Walter Roban, who was briefly the Minister in charge of Corporations reform last year. Mr. Roban claimed in that spell Government had made much more effort to consult and discuss the issue than Mayor Charles Gosling has insinuated.

The Minister said the Corporation of Hamilton had presented him a dossier of its own ideas on reform, but he could not accept it because it kept the commercial component of the franchise.

He said he told the Corporation: "You can't be campaigning for real change that the PLP have been campaigning for."

Shadow Health Minister Louise Jackson told the House she will now be disenfranchised as a business owner in Hamilton. Mrs. Jackson presented a 5,000-name petition against the "dismantling of the Corporation of Hamilton", with Dr. Brown remarking that's much less than a previous anti-Independence petition. And she criticised Government for not releasing the report on the municipalities put together by $650,000 consultants.

Mrs. Jackson said the Corporation had recently made self-improvements which had been a "joy to watch" and it is a tragedy it's now going to he "destroyed".

Independent MP Darius Tucker said it is important to weigh up the balance of doing the right thing by residents and businesses.

He said he does not agree with one person being able to have 25 or 30 votes while residents only have one.