1986 — Page 102

Page 102 of 201

162

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

as a channel for redress because of the complexity of our

judicial proceedings. The Court can only declare a decision made by a certain department as null and void or order it to review its decision. It cannot order the department to act in any other way. Noting the above points, it is not difficult to see that among the various channels for redress, only UMELCO has sufficient powers to investigate into cases alleging maladministration. But due to various limitations, UMELCO cannot effectively play the role of a Commissioner for Administration. Thus there really is a case for creating a Commissioner for Administration to deal specificially with complaints. Future development of our system of government will see a gradual increase in elected elements in the Legislative Council. LegCo members should spend more time on policy-making rather than pay too much attention to cases alleging maladministration.

Some may worry that after the setting up of a Commissioner for Administration, the status of Councillors and District Board members

may fall in the eyes of the public. This I deem to be undue worry. The political image of a Councillor or District Board member is governed by a different factor and his/her influence will not be reduced with the creation of a Commissioner for Administration. We may take the British system as reference: The public cannot complain directly to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration but have first to contact a member of the House of Commons. The member concerned will refer the case to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration if he/she is satisfied that it is under the latter's jurisdiction. Hong Kong may adopt similar procedures, i.e., the public have to direct their complaints first to a Legislative Councillor. If the Councillor deems the case to be involving maladministration, he/she will refer it to the Commissioner for Administration. Complaints concerning urban services and the Urban Services Department have to pass through an Urban Councillor.

What powers and functions should the Commissioner for Administration have?

Responsible for investigating into allegations of maladministration and formulating proposals, the Commissioner for Administration must have the power to call for internal documents of government departments and invite officers concerned to provide evidence, and, if necessary, publicize the inves- tigation report. The Commissioner for Administration should not handle complaints against government policies and legislation which are under the jurisdiction of the legislature, nor should the Commissioner criticize govern- ment policies.

As the Commissioner for Administration is to handle cases alleging mal- administration, the public should not approach him/her just to express dissatisfaction with certain decisions by the government. He/she is only concerned about maladministration by a government department in the course of decision-making, and thus, has the right to reject inappropriate complaints.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

Page 102 of 201

163

Last is about the appointment of the Commissioner for Administration. The Commissioner for Administration should be directly accountable to the Governor and not any other government officials. He/she should be indepen- dent of the civil service and have powers equivalent to those of a High Court judge to investigate into government departments and officials involved in allegations of maladministration. As to the choice of candidate, besides possessing rich experience in public administration and legal knowledge, he/she must have a good public image so that the public will have confidence in his/her ability to make fair judgements.

MR. TONG KAM-BIU (in Cantonese): Mr. Chairman, the Government has recently released a consultative document on the redress of grievances in response to the Governor's Address to the Legislative Council in October 1985 when a review on the existing channels of complaint was mentioned.

However, devoid of content, the document presents neither concrete pro- posals to improve the present system nor sufficient information on the setting up of the 'Commissioner for Administration'. The function of the 'Commissioner for Administration' is not clearly defined, nor is the cost-effectiveness of such a system mentioned. The document warns that the setting up of a 'Commissioner for Administration' may not have the favour of the Courts, tribunals and review bodies, and thus may give rise to conflicts. The document also doubts whether it justifies the cost in money, manpower and legislative time required.

On the other hand, the document spares no effort to point out that the existing channels for the redress of grievances are effective and satisfactory. Two-third of the paragraphs are about how the existing systems are monitored, how complaints are fairly treated, and what brilliant results have been achieved. The document also says that proposals will be put forward to improve the present systems.

If the existing systems for the redress of grievances are so successful as stated in the document, I really do not understand why the document is issued for consultation and what discussion and improvement are necessary.

Guided by the document, (actually this 'Consultative Document' would be more appropriately renamed ‘a Guide'), I am in favour of paragraph 30(6), i.e. improving existing channels by strengthening the OMELCO, Urban and Regional Councils and District Board Secretariats in regard to the handling of appeals and complaints, and by improving and strengthening departmental complaints units.

Lastly, I think this questionable consultative document on the redress of grievances is the worst of the many 'consultative documents' published by the Government in recent years. If the Government is positive about setting up a 'Commissioner for Administration' or strengthening the existing systems for the redress of grievances, it should prepare a more detailed, effective and objective document for public consultation.