Dutiable Commodities (Amendment) Bill 1985
First Reading: 1.5.85
Second & Third Readings: 15.5.85
The Bill sought to give effect to the 1985 Budget proposal to introduce duty on cosmetics and non-alcoholic beverages. The aim was to raise an estimated revenue of $310 million for the financial year 1985/86. Excluded from the ambit of the duty were concentrates, distilled water, milk,
pure
fruit juice or vegetable juice and
soup.
Following the Financial Secretary's announcement of the proposal in his Budget speech on 27.2.85, a group of 10 cosmetics importing companies, the Cosmetic and Perfumery Association of Hong Kong Ltd., the Beverage Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong, a teachers' association and three other companies made representations to UMELCO.
At the Budget debate on 27-28.3.85, a considerable number of Unofficial Members spoke on the proposed duty. The major points raised included:
Cosmetics
(a) a substantial proportion of cosmetics was sold to tourists and the imposition of duty would adversely affect the tourist trade;
(b) Hong Kong's position as a regional distributor of cosmetics would be undermined;
(c) FOB instead of CIF prices should be used as the basis for calculating the duty;
(d) duty free concessions should be clarified;
(e) a clearer definition of 'cosmetics' was needed;
(f) a line should be drawn between luxury items and items for hygiene and therapeutic purposes, and the latter should be exempted from tax;
Non-alcoholic beverages (g) the duty only involved contributing a bit more to the public coffers for non-essential consumption; (h) the increase in price after absorbing the tax was lower than the recommended retail price, which seemed to indicate that prices after tax were affordable and acceptable; (i) non-alcoholic beverages had become part of daily life especially for the middle and lower income groups and there should be other better targets for raising revenue;
(i) it was regretted that a duty that hit young people hardest had to be introduced in the International Youth Year; and
(k) nutritious drinks such as soya bean milk which had been regarded as a substitute for dairy milk should be exempted; alternatively, drinks with protein content over a certain stipulated level should be exempted.
In reply, the Financial Secretary said in his speech concluding the Budget debate on 17.4.85 that these fresh tax measures were proposed because others offered more disadvantages. Tourists could buy cosmetic items duty free at the airport while the export of cosmetics from Hong Kong could be conducted ex-bond and therefore on a duty free basis. Pure soya bean milk would be exempted along with pure fruit or vegetable juices.
After the introduction of the Bill into the Legislative Council on 1.5.85, the Legislation Scrutiny and Legal Services Working Group (Convener: Mr Peter C WONG) met with the Administration and agreed on several amendments.
Speaking at the Second Reading debate on 15.5.85, Mr Peter C WONG explained the three technical amendments he was going to move at Committee Stage. They would remove doubt in the definition of 'cosmetics', substitute a more suitable word in the
calculation of costs and delete a superfluous and undesirable word in the definition. The Financial Secretary moved two other technical amendments.
The Bill was read the third time and passed on 15.5.85.
Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Bill 1985
First Reading: 15.5.85
Second Reading: 12.6.85
Third Reading: 26.6.85
The Bill sought to declare and define certain powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislative Council, its Members and officers. While the Bill would have the effect of granting powers, privileges and immunities to individual Members personally,
its objective was to enable Members to discharge their functions properly, without fear or favour, and to uphold the dignity of the legislature.
The Bill followed to a large extent the standard pattern for such legislation in former colonial legislatures. The main provisions were: freedom of speech in LegCo; immunity from legal action in respect of any proceedings before the Council; freedom from arrest for civil debt whilst going to, attending at or returning from any sitting of the Council, and for a criminal offence whilst attending a sitting; prohibition of the service of any civil process inside the Council Chamber; exemption from jury service; regulation of admittance to and conduct of strangers within the Council precincts; power to order witnesses to give evidence to the Council; entitlement of a witness to the same protection as before a court of law; and penalties for offences.
The Bill, in its draft form, was referred to Unofficial LegCo Members for their views on what provisions they considered necessary and appropriate. A special Ad Hoc Group to study the draft Bill was set up in October 1984 under the convenership of Miss Maria TAM. The Group met thrice, including once with the Administration. The Group supported the principle and spirit of the draft Bill and suggested a number of amendments. A report was submitted to a full meeting of all LegCo Unofficials in March 1985. The Group's views and recommendations were endorsed.
Virtually all the amendments suggested by Unofficial Members were incorporated in the Bill gazetted on 10.5.85, while the Administration proposed a few further changes to the original draft.
In introducing the Bill into LegCo, the Chief Secretary, Sir Philip Haddon-Cave, said that the existing body of law, principally UK case law which applied in Hong Kong under the common law system, and administrative practices in fact already conferred all those powers and privileges in the Bill on Members of LegCo. In view of the constitutional changes ahead, the Government considered it desirable to enact legislation to codify such powers and privileges.
Shortly before the originally scheduled Second Reading on 29.5.85, the Hong Kong Affairs Society made a representation to
17