JULY 11, 1990
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11,
25
WAS ONE DISSENTING THE ADMINISTRATION BELIEVED THAT IF THERE
STRONGLY IN THE HANDS OF VOTE, THAT WOULD PUT A POWER OF VETO TOO
AND VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
OF OBJECT
MOVING AWAY FROM THE DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH TOWARDS THE PRESENT REQUIREMENT FOR UNANIMITY.
RULE,
SECOND READING "I EXPLAINED IN MY REPLY TO THE DEBATE ON THE WHY WE CONSIDERED IT ESSENTIAL TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE UNANIMITY WHILST RETAINING THE REQUIREMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY.
"THE FORMULA PROPOSED IN THE BILL MEETS THOSE OBJECTIVES. AMENDMENT DOES NOT," SIR DAVID SAID.
THE
-
BILL TO EXPAND JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION'S MEMBERSHIP
*
TO
THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989 SEEKS
COMMISSION
FOR AN TO PROVIDE (JSC), EXPAND THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE
THAT RESOLUTIONS SHOULD BE INCREASE IN THE QUORUM AND TO PROVIDE PASSED WITH NO MORE THAN TWO DISSENTING VOTES, THE HON RONALD
IN SAID IN THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
BILL
THE
LEGISLATIVE
ARCULLI
COUNCIL
GROUP SPEAKING IN HIS CAPACITY AS CONVENER OF THE LEGCO AD HOC
ISSUES THAT RAISED CONCERN TO STUDY THE BILL, MR ARCULLI SAID THE
WERE THE ADVICE OF AMONG THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND HIS AD HOC GROUP
QUORUM ; THE JSC; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MEMBERSHIP ON THE COMMISSION;
AS PROFESSION
WELL AS THE THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL NUMBER OF DISSENTING VOTES PERMISSIBLE.
MR ARCULLI SAID THE AD HOC GROUP, AFTER THOROUGH DELIBERATIONS, SATISFACTORILY RESOLVED THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND NUMBER OF DISSENTING
THE LEGAL PROFESSION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE VOTES PERMISSIBLE IN THE MAKING OF RESOLUTION.
A
HE NOTED THAT AS THE BILL WAS DRAFTED AT PRESENT, MIGHT BE CARRIED EVEN IF THERE WERE TWO DISSENTING VOICES, EXISTING ORDINANCE A RESOLUTION WAS CARRIED ONLY IF IT WAS ALL MEMBERS PRESENT.
RESOLUTION
BUT IN THE PASSED BY
EXISTING THE FROM QUICKLY TOO "IT WILL BE MOVING UNANIMITY IF TWO DISSENTING VOTES ARE ALLOWED.
RULE OF
ΤΟ SUBSTANTIATE ANY PROFESSION HAS IN ANY WAY
"MOREOVER, THERE SEEMS TO BE NO EVIDENCE CONCERN BY THE JUDICIARY THAT THE LEGAL ABUSED THE EXISTING RIGHT OF VETO,
HE HE SAID
HIMSELF
WAS
HE SAID.
PARTICULARLY
CONCERNED
THAT IF A OR THE WOULD NEVERTHELESS
CANDIDATE DID NOT RECEIVE THE SUPPORT OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE OR SHE BE APPOINTED.
/"PERSONALLY I