5
The proposal to prohibit the approval by the Legislative Council of a commencement notice appointing a day for the coming into operation of a provision or purpose of the Bill unless relevant rules or regulations have been made will do nothing but create uncertainty and confusion. Such a provision depends upon the passage of the other proposed CSAs, and cannot operate without them. By itself, the proposed sub-clause (3) would paralyse the Bill.
Even if the other related CSAs were passed, it remains unclear how sub- clause (3) would work. It is not clear from sub-clause (3) how the Council can determine whether sufficient rules or regulations have been made to satisfy the pre-condition created by the sub-clause. This could lead to challenges on the validity of the operation of sections in the Ordinance.
The Legislative Council already has the power to reject regulations or rules, or to amend them so they can be approved, as well as the power to reject a commencement notice. This makes the proposed power superfluous. The general and continuous availability of the affirmative resolution procedure would provide the Legislative Council with the control it seeks. No purpose would be served by adding the proposed clause 1(3).
There also remains the possibility that the effect of clause 1(3) might be to strip a provision, once commenced, of its subsidiary legislation making power.
The proposed sub-clause (3) is essentially misconceived.
The power to commence and to implement an Ordinance should be vested with the executive. There are already adequate checks and balances between the executive and the legislature under existing constitutional arrangements. The proposed amendments, while well- intended, are misconceived and will undermine our executive-led political system.
Amendments to be moved by Hon Lee Cheuk-yan
The Hon Lee Cheuk-yan will move amendments to clause 14(3) to exempt registered MPF schemes from the set-off arrangements as prescribed in the Employment Ordinance (Cap.57) in respect of severance payments or long service payments. The Administration urges LegCo members to vote against these amendments on the following grounds: