WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1990
23
VIEWS OF SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY SHOULD PREVAIL IN JSC
JUDICIAL
THE ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERS THAT A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY ON THE THE SERVICE COMMISSION (JSC) SHOULD BE ABLE TO PREVAIL OVER
THE CHIEF VIEWS OF A
AND TENDER ADVICE ACCORDINGLY, MINORITY
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SECRETARY, THE HON SIR DAVID FORD, SAID IN THE TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
JUDICIAL SERVICE
THE BILL
WINDING UP THE SECOND READING DEBATE ON THE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989, SIR DAVID EXPLAINED THAT WAS A REVISED VERSION OF A BILL FIRST INTRODUCED IN JUNE 1988.
OF RESULT
VIEWS THE EARLIER BILL AS A ALREADY MODIFIED
AD HOC EXCHANGED WITH THE LEGAL PROFESSION AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE GROUP ON THE FIRST BILL, HE SAID.
IT
"FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AD HOC GROUP ON THE PRESENT BILL," PROFESSION, HAVE BEEN AND THROUGH THE AD HOC GROUP WITH THE LEGAL
SIR DAVID ADDED. CARRIED OUT SINCE THIS BILL WAS INTRODUCED,
THE
THE CONCERNED
NUMBER OF HE SAID THE MAIN OUTSTANDING ISSUES
THE WHEREBY MECHANISM QUORUM ; MEMBERS REQUIRED TO FORM A
APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNOR SHOULD CONSULT THE PROFESSION REGARDING THE
OF THE JSC;
OF AND THE NUMBER MEMBERS BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR DISSENTING VOTES TO BE ALLOWED IN MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION.
"THE ADMINISTRATION IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT AMENDMENTS BILL IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST TWO MATTERS," SIR DAVID SAID.
TO THE
BE ALLOWED, THE THAT THE FACT
ΤΟ VOTES AS TO THE NUMBER OF DISSENTING
MADE OF HAD BEEN MENTION SAID CHIEF SECRETARY RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION MUST AT PRESENT BE UNANIMOUS.
"THIS ARRANGEMENT CAN GIVE RISE TO A SITUATION SINGLE MEMBER COULD VETO A DECISION OF THE REMAINDER.
IN WHICH A
AND THE UNANIMITY RULE
"THAT IS NOT A SATISFACTORY SITUATION, IS FELT TO BE UNWORKABLE IN REALLY DIFFICULT CASES.
COMMISSION
MINORITY AND TENDER
"IT
IS OUR VIEW THAT A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY ON THE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PREVAIL OVER THE VIEWS OF A ADVICE ACCORDINGLY, SIR DAVID EXPLAINED.
WAS
"I
HE POINTED OUT THAT IF, THEN, THE PRINCIPLE OF MAJORITY ACCEPTED, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT REMAINED WAS THE
MAJORITY.
VOTING
SIZE OF THE
SHOULD BE A
BILL
THE GOVERNMENT HAD ALWAYS ACCEPTED THAT THERE SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY AND ITS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, CONTAINED IN THE INTRODUCED IN 1988, HAD BEEN FOR A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY,
/"THE LEGAL