DOC

Administration's

By Alice Simmons,2014-11-09 23:54
14 views 0
Administration's

立法會

    Legislative Council

    LC Paper No. CB(2) 1082/02-03(01)

    Panel on Security and Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services

    Summary of concerns and queries raised by Members at the joint meetings

    on 26 September 2002, 21 October 2002, 19 December 2002 and 7 January 2003

    prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat

A. General issues

    Major area Concerns and queries raised by Members Administration's response

    1. Timing to enact (a) The phrase "enact laws on its own" in Article 23 (i) With matters of principle having been discussed

    laws to implement of the Basic Law (BL23) meant that the Hong and the detailed proposals being made Article 23 of the Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) available, and with sufficient time to examine Basic Law could decide when and how local legislation was professional views, there was no reason why

    to be introduced. It was presently not an the legislation to be proposed could not be

    appropriate time to enact laws to implement enacted in July 2003, especially under the

    BL23. principle that any matter should be dealt with

     efficiently. It was undesirable to leave a gap

    (b) There was no need to pass any legislative in the legislation of Hong Kong.

    proposals in a hurry, especially in view of the

    fact that there had not been any cases of treason

    or sedition in the past five years after

    Reunification.

    - 2 -

    A. General issues

    Major area Concerns and queries raised by Members Administration's response

     (c) What was the way forward and timetable (ii) The Administration intended to issue a report

    regarding the Administration's proposals to setting out the pattern of views received in the

    implement BL23. public consultation exercise. The submissions

     received would be made public, unless

    requested otherwise, with the report. The

    Administration also hoped to make public the

    way forward, both in terms of the timetable and

    its latest position on the proposals in the

    Consultation Document.

    (iii) It was the Administration's intention that the

    draft legislative provisions would be

    supplemented by explanations in layman terms

    to facilitate the public's understanding of the

    provisions.

     (d) Whether legislation to implement BL23 must be (iv) While the Administration hoped that legislation

    enacted by July 2003. to implement BL23 would be enacted by July

     2003, it was not a deadline for the enactment of

    such legislation.

    - 3 -

A. General issues

    Major area Concerns and queries raised by Members Administration's response

     (e) What was the timetable for the issuing of the (v) The Administration hoped to issue the report on

    draft provisions. the consultation exercise in January 2003 and

     introduce a blue bill in February 2003.

    2. Consultation with (a) Whether the Administration had discussed and (i) Consultation had been made with the Central the Central People's reached an agreement with the Mainland People's Government (CPG) on matters of Government regarding its proposals and legislative timetable principle and concepts such as national security,

    to implement BL23. territorial integrity and unity. Technical

     issues, points of law and enforcement aspects

    would be dealt with by the HKSAR on its own.

    (ii) The common wish regarding the legislative

    timetable was that the proposals to implement

    BL23 should be enacted as soon as possible.

    3. Issuing of a white (a) The Administration should, after the (i) It was not the Administration's usual practice to bill consultation period, issue a white bill in early issue a white bill before the introduction of a

    2003 setting out the details of legislative blue bill.

    proposals to implement BL23 for a consultation

    period of a few months before introducing a blue

    bill in mid-2003.

    - 4 -

    A. General issues

    Major area Concerns and queries raised by Members Administration's response

     (b) From a constitutional point of view, a white bill (ii) The introduction of a blue bill after the

    differed from a blue bill in that the consultation period would be the most efficient

    Administration had not taken a position on the way to deal with the matter. A blue bill and a

    provisions to be enacted and the legislative white bill could equally serve the purpose of

    process had not yet commenced. providing details about the legislative

     proposals.

     (c) Why the Administration would not issue the (iii) It was the Administration's general practice to

    draft legislative provisions in the form of a white issue a blue bill after a public consultation

    bill, which would set out the draft provisions exercise. Over the past 18 years, only 18

    clearly while providing room for public white bills had been introduced, among which

    discussion. three were subsequently withdrawn. The

     Administration considered that what could be

    (d) A white bill differed from a blue bill in that the achieved by way of a white bill could also be

    Administration did not take a stand on the achieved by way of a blue bill.

    proposals in a white bill, while it took a stand on

    the proposals in a blue bill. After a blue bill (iv) The Administration did not take a stand on a

    was introduced into LegCo, it would be up to the white bill. However, the issuing of a blue bill

    Bills Committee formed to study the bill to did not mean that the Administration had taken

    decide how to carry out public consultation, a stand on the blue bill.

    including the scope and period of consultation.

    - 5 -

A. General issues

    Major area Concerns and queries raised by Members Administration's response

     (e) A white bill differed from a blue bill in that the

    former could not be enacted by LegCo.

    4. Human rights (a) Whether the enacted legislation would override (i) The enacted legislation would not override the implications existing provisions in the Hong Kong Bill of provisions in BORO. Under BL39, the laws

    Rights Ordinance