· 36 ·
The Bills Committee amendment to this clause would mean that:
one, the Commission would not have to inform the person of its belief that his or her act may have been unlawful;
two, the act would not be restricted to those made unlawful by the Ordinance; and
three, it would place a time limit of 28 days on the persons being investigated to make their representations.
We believe it would be better to require the Commission to state its belief as to what unlawful act has been perpetrated since this would be the reason for its investigation. And as bad publicity could be generated for those being investigated, it is all the more important that the belief or reason for the Commission's action be stated. It is also reasonable that the Commission should only investigate acts unlawful under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance. The problem with a set time limit is that it is inflexible and it does not allow for particular circumstances to be taken into account including the complexity of the case and the availability of the person being investigated. The Bill as drafted would allow the Commission to set its own time limit as appropriate.
International Obligations and Instruments
The Bills Committee has proposed that the Equal Opportunities Commission, which is to be set up under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance and which will also play a key role in giving effect to this Bill, should have two new powers. The first is the power to promote the understanding, acceptance and public discussion of relevant international obligations and standards. The second is to examine any proposed legislation it considers may affect the equality of opportunity between those with and without a disability or affect the understanding and acceptance of the same international obligations and standards. It should then report the results of its examination to the person putting forward the legislation and to this Council.
Mr President, we feel that the Disability Discrimination Bill is a self-contained and comprehensive Bill. We are setting out in our own domestic legislation the standards we believe are appropriate for Hong Kong. It could be confusing for the public to link this concrete expression of what is or is not lawful with more general international statements or rules, for example, with the UN Declarations on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and on the Rights of Disabled Persons, or the standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.