XN000022-1990-07-11 — Page 25

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