lammed inte
Mr. Galsworthy HKD
dps
ab
Dr Wilson
HK: POWERS AND PRIVILEGES
1
mentioned
во пот
lavo
night
that
John
Morris,
QC,
MP
had
asker
to su
Mr.
Line
In advance
I the
3rd
Reading of the
g
Powers and
Privileger Bill. Here
helex from the HK
profession
which
is the
legal
his call
th
has
based.
2. He
coming
to see the.
Like
ar 12.15
Monday 24
June. May
I please have a
short brief - if possible for
21
roniquis
box?
theormacol 16
HKK 011/12
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
3 1 JUL 1985
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
REGISTRY
PA
Action Taken
+
A
MR. I. MACCALLUM ASKED ME TO TELEX THIS STATEMENT TO YOU AND TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO GIVE THE COPY TO
R. JOHN MORRIS, Q.C. FOR HIS INFO.
QUOTE:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION, THE PRESIDENT OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND THE CHAIRMAN OF JUSTICE RESPECTFULLY CALL UPON GOVERNMENT TO DEFER FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL PREFERABLY UNTIL THE NEXT SESSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
THE AMENDMENTS WERE ONLY PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT LAST FRIDAY. SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TIME SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY. AND THE MANY ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN, TO CONSIDER THESE AMENDMENTS AND TO MAKE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ON THEM.
GOVERNMENT'S APPARENT ATTEMPT TO HAVE THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION PASSED SO SPEEDILY WITHOUT ANY COMPELLING REASON WILL RAISE SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO THE SINCERITY OF GOVERNMENT IN CLAIMING TO CONTINUE THE TRADITION OF CONSULTATIVE GOVERNMENT.
ALTHOUGH THE AMENDMENTS HAVE REMEDIED SOME OF THE MOST OBVIOUS FAULTS OF THE ORIGINAL BILL THERE ARE STILL CERTAIN AREAS THAT GIVE RISE TO CONCERN:-
-
STUNDRAZ
CLAUSE 8(2): IT APPEARS TO BE WIDELY ACCEPTED THAT STANDING ORDERS THEMSELVES REQUIRE A TOTAL REVIEW AND AS THEY, AND ANY AMENDMENT OF THEM ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY AND COMMENT, THE RIGHT TO OPEN GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THEIR TERMS. THE WORDS 'THE STANDING ORDERS OR'' SHOULD THEREFORE BE DELETED.
CLAUSE 8(3): THE CONTROL OF PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC CONDUCT IN THE CHAMBER SHOULD BE BY WAY OF A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, NOT BY A UNILATERAL INSTRUCTION'' FROM THE PRESIDENT. MOREOVER THE PHRASE ''AND FOR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES'' GIVES FAR TOO WIDE A SCOPE TO BAR THE PUBLIC FROM MEETINGS. THE PRECEDING REASONS ARE ALL THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PURPOSE.
CLAUSE 19(A): THE USE OF WORD ''INSULT"
IN THIS PROVISION IS WHAT MAY APPEAR TO
A RESTRICTION OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. A LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLOR TO BE AN INSULT MAY APPEAR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO BE LEGITIMATE CRITICISM. THE WORDS ''INSULTS'' AND ''INSULT'' SHOULD BE DELETED.
THE REFERENCE TO A MOTION OR MATTER EXPECTED TO BE BROUGHT'' BEFORE THE COUNCIL OR A COMMITTEE IS FAR TOO VAGUE A PHRASE TO BE USED IN A PROVISION IMPOSING CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. THESE WORDS SHOULD BE DELETED.
CLAUSE 23: FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE REMOVING THE RIGHT OF THE COURTS TO REVIEW THE EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY STANDING ORDERS IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE REFERENCE TO ''OR THE STANDING ORDERS'' SHOULD BE DELETED.
AS
WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED THAT THIS BILL REFLECTS A VERY SHORT TERM APPROACH TO THE POSITION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. MISS LYDIA DUNN SAID IN ANOTHER CONTEXT DURING THE BUDGET DEBATE, IT IS CLEARLY NECESSARY THAT WE SHOULD THINK AHEAD A GOOD DEAL FURTHER''.
OUR SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL WITH THE AMENDMENTS WHICH WE HAVE PROPOSED IS ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WILL BE A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE POSITION AND STATUS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ALREADY PROMISED REVIEW OF THE STEPS TOWARDS REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.