WEDNESDAY, 26, 1985
ONE
+THE BILL NOW BEFORE COUNCIL HAS BEEN FURTHER TRIMMED DOWN TO REFLECT THIS PRACTICAL APPROACH, SHE SAID.
+ INDEED, WE HAVE RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS ON CLAUSES THREE, FOUR, EIGHT, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 AND 24 OF THE ORIGINAL BILL AND WE HAVE ASKED FOR AMENDMENT TO ALL EXCEPT CLAUSES 3 AND 4 OF THE ORIGINAL BILL,+ SHE ADDED.
CONSIDERING THAT THE POWERS OF THE COUNCIL IN THIS BILL WERE NOW SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF REQUIRED AND TRIMMED DOWN IN THE WAY THAT SHE HAD DESCRIBED, MISS TAM SAID IT WAS ACTUALLY SAFE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE THIRD READING NOW. INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE NEXT SESSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
+THERE IS NO BETTER EVIDENCE THAT WE DO RESPOND TO PUBLIC OPINION BY INTRODUCING THE ABOVE MENTIONED AMENDMENTS,
SHE SAID.
+1 TRUST IT IS NOT THE PUBLIC WISH THAT THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MUST RESPOND TO PUBLICISED PRESSURE,+ SHE ADDED.
MISS TAM SAID SINCE THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL THE AD HOC GROUP HAD RECEIVED FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS.
SOME HAD MADE SUGGESTIONS OF AMENDMENTS, AND SOME HAD ASKED FOR A DEFERMENT UNTIL ALL DISTRICT BOARDS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAD EXPRESSED THEIR VIEWS ON IT, OR UNTIL THERE WERE ELECTED MEMBERS TO THE COUNCIL IN THE NEXT SESSION.
THE AD HOC GROUP WENT THROUGH ALL THE REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSIDERED EVERY POINT RAISED BY THEM, SHE SAID.
+MY COLLEAGUES SPEAKING AT THE COMMITTEE STAGE HAVE DEALT WITH CLAUSES ON WHICH WE ARE ASKING FOR AMENDMENTS.
+FOR THE CLAUSES WHICH WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR AMENDMENTS THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ANSWER FOR THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN US THE IŔ HELPFUL COMMENTS.+
CLAUSES FALLING INTO THE LATTER CATEGORY WERE:
CLAUSES 3 AND 4: THE CRITICISM WAS THAT THESE TWO CLAUSES OVERLAPPED AND THERE SHOULD BE SANCTIONS AGAINST ANY MEMBER WHO ABUSED HIS OR HER POSITION BY MAKING DEFAMATORY COMMENTS IN COUNCIL OR COMMITTEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THESE CRITICISMS, THE GROUP WAS SATISFIED THAT CLAUSE THREE STATED THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT THERE SHALL BE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEBATE IN THE COUNCIL AND CLAUSE FOUR GAVE IMMUNITY FROM LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER WHO HAD MADE WRITTEN REPORTS OR PETITIONS, BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, MOTIONS ETC. TO THE COUNCIL OR COMMITTEE AND THERE WAS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE THC.
/CLAUSE 7(2):