XN000022-1995-02-22 — Page 20

- 7-

S for S on importation of labour

Following is the speech by the Secretary for Security, Mr Peter Lai, at the second reading debate on the Hon Michael Ho's Immigration (Amendment) Bill 1993 in the Legislative Council today (Wednesday):

Mr President,

+

I will speak on the more general aspects of the Honourable Michael Ho's private member's bill. My colleague, the Secretary for Education and Manpower, will speak on the more specific issues of the importation of labour scheme, which this bill is specifically aimed at.

The bill introduced by the Honourable Member addresses a matter of public policy. Although it may not be evident on the face of this bill, it appears that the Honourable Michael Ho is, in effect, seeking to replace by legislative means, the present Importation of Labour Scheme by some different arrangements. In that case, surely, it is incumbent upon him to spell out precisely what arrangements he is seeking to put in place in replacement of the present scheme. But he has not done so.

In today's debate, some Honourable Members, in support of the bill, said that the present scheme should be revised. Other Honourable Members equally expressing support for the bill seem to want the scheme to be stopped although that is not what the bill says on the face of it. So what really is the bill's intended effect?

The bill, as it stands, has the effect of completely stopping the importation of labour scheme, for no rules have been drawn up by the Honourable Member as to how the scheme might continue to operate after the bill is enacted. My colleague, the Secretary for Education and Manpower, will explain why this is highly undesirable. The Honourable Member has said previously that he is prepared to move a Committee Stage Amendment to postpone the coming into effect of the bill for several months so as to allow time for the rules to be drawn up. But there is no certainty that the intended Committee Stage Amendment will materialise. Quite frankly, there must be considerable doubt that the matter has not been thought through, and it is extremely risky to support the bill which is only half-baked.

What, therefore, does the bill in front of us amount to? I should just use a metaphor to illustrate. It is like saying, I don't like your window and I am now going to break it. You will have to sweep up the broken glass to make sure that others are not hurt. I might, although I cannot promise you, give you a few months to suggest another window to replace the one I have broken. But you will have to figure out the shape and the colour of the replacement. I might not like what you put forward later, and you can't install it unless I allow you to. In the meanwhile, you will just have to live with the wind and the rain that comes in through the broken window. And if everybody else catch a cold, that's their business.

Page 20Page 21