XN000022-1995-11-22 — Page 7

- 5-

On the other hand, the Hon Frederick Fung's amendment seeks to delete the test of giving unemployment assistance only to those who are in need and imposes a time limit for the period during which assistance payments can be made. Under this proposal an unemployed person could receive assistance regardless of the level of savings he may have and regardless of his actual needs. If such a person had savings, it seems reasonable to me to expect part of those savings to be used to meet his daily needs before expecting others in the community, who may well be less well off, to provide him with an income through the taxes they pay. It is also not clear what the position would be if the person remained unemployed after having received assistance for six months.

Of course, some countries do have unemployment benefit schemes but these are, in almost all cases, schemes to which employers and/or employees contribute over time. Our CSSA Scheme is a non-contributory welfare payment system. As I have said before, it should not be 'hijacked' to perform a role that it was never intended to play. The Hon Fred Li's amendment would mean breaking with the central philosophy of the CSSA Scheme by providing a payment at a level raised artificially higher than that needed to address basic needs. A standard rate of $2.750 for an unemployed adult would also be higher than that now provided for the elderly, for children and for people with a disability. This could only be justified in terms of the CSSA Scheme policy if we were satisfied that the real needs of the unemployed were that much greater than the needs of these other vulnerable groups. I am not satisfied that such a case can be made. Nor do I believe that the CSSA Scheme is the right vehicle to use to address a perceived need for unemployment benefits.

In his speech today, the Hon Fred Li has clarified that his proposed CSSA rate for unemployed adults is based on the recommendations made in Professor MacPherson's Report of June 1994. I recently explained to this Council on 2 November why we cannot accept the recommendations in that Report which are based on a different philosophy. In short, we believe the CSSA should seek to meet basic needs only rather than seek to maintain a certain lifestyle.