Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 Wednesday, July 9, 1997 Following is the speech by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson Chan, in moving the second reading of the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 at the Provisional Legislative Council today (Wednesday): Madam President, I move that the Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill 1997 be read the second time. The Bill aims to suspend the operation of the legislative changes effected by 7 Ordinances which were introduced by members of the previous Legislative Council and passed at the last sitting of the 1996 - 97 legislative session. These 7 Ordinances are: - Employment (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1997; - Employment (Amendment) (No. 5) Ordinance 1997; - Occupational Deafness (Compensation) (Amendment) Ordinance 1997; - Employee's Rights to Representation, Consultation and Collective Bargaining Ordinance 1997; - Trade Unions (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1997; - Protection of the Harbour Ordinance; - Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 Most of these Ordinances have far reaching implications for Government policies and operations, which have not been fully considered before enactment. Indeed, only three were scrutinised by a Bills Committee, i.e. the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, the Employment (Amendment)(No. 4) Ordinance 1997 and the Trade Unions (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1997. The provisions of the five labour-related Ordinances were not based on any consensus reached by the Labour Advisory Board. This move has undermined the well-established tripartite consultative forum comprising employers, employees and Government and it adversely affects the harmonious labour relations which Hong Kong currently enjoys. In particular, the Employee's Rights to Representation, Consultation and Collective Bargaining Ordinance has immediate and far-reaching implications for the existing labour relations system in Hong Kong. The Ordinance affects over 1.3 million employees or 57 per cent of the total number of employees in Hong Kong. It is likely to disrupt industrial harmony by inducing intense rivalries amongst different trade unions in competing for members and recognition for representation, and by impeding the operation of the current labour dispute mechanism through direct and voluntary negotiations between employers and employees. The Ordinance requires employers to consult employees through their representative trade unions on sensitive commercial decisions such as changes in ownership and restructuring. It is also very likely to adversely affect Hong Kong's economic competitiveness and attractiveness to overseas investments to the detriment of the employment opportunities of the entire workforce. The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance establishes a presumption against reclamation in the central harbour and will seriously undermine our ability to provide more land and transport infrastructure in the Central Business District. Although the Protection of the Harbour Bill was studied by a Bills Committee, the Committee Stage Amendments passed at the last sitting were not studied because they were proposed after the Bills Committee had concluded its work. The Bill of Rights (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 intends to repeal all legislation which is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Ordinance (BORO) and this includes not just legislation invoked by the Government or public authorities but those affecting inter-citizen rights. However, section 7 of BORO sets out in very clear terms that BORO only binds the Government and the public authorities. Therefore, the Bill of Rights (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 may raise certain legal uncertainties and we need to consider its effect further with a view to removing any doubts over the provisions of BORO. The 5 labour-related Ordinances, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 and the Protection of Harbour Ordinance have already come into operation. As they represent a major departure from Government policies and may have adverse long-term consequences for the community as a whole, we consider it prudent to review each piece of legislation carefully to assess the social, economic and political implications. We will consult all relevant parties, such as the Labour Advisory Board, before deciding on the way forward. We will be making a decision on these Ordinances individually since they vary in nature and complexity. This in turn will affect the time required for scrutiny. In all cases, we aim to complete the review not later than September. I can also assure Members that this Council will be consulted on the outcome of the review. The Legislative Provisions (Suspension of Operation) Bill therefore represents a pragmatic approach which allows for a proper scrutiny of the various legislative changes to determine whether the provisions are truly in the public interest. In the course of our review, we will also study the impact of the Interception of Communications Ordinance and the Housing (Amendment) Ordinance which were introduced by Members of the previous Legislative Council before deciding whether they should come into operation. We will also be looking at the Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance which was substantially amended during the Committee Stage at the last sitting of the previous Legislative Council. In order to minimise and contain the changes effected by the 7 Ordinances which have already come into force, it is highly desirable to proceed as quickly as possible with the Bill. However, I understand that Members have reservations over whether we should complete all three readings of the Bill in one sitting today. In view of this and in order to allow members more time to consider the Bill, I propose to deal with the Bill in the normal manner, that is by moving the adjournment of the Second Reading debate. I appeal to members to support the resumption of the Second Reading debate on this Bill at the next sitting on July 16 and to pass this Bill. In the next few days we will be happy to provide any additional information or explanation on the Bill which members may require. I fully accept that the proposal to suspend operation of the 7 Ordinances is an unusual move. Let me assure Members that we have not taken this action lightly. However in the light of all the circumstances which I have outlined above, the Administration believes that it would be irresponsible to allow these Ordinances to operate in the absence of a clear assessment of how these provisions are likely to affect the community as a whole. We also need to allow time for various interested parties to express their views. It is already clear from the wider views expressed so far that there is serious concern over the hasty enactment of these Ordinances during the last legislative session. With these remarks, I strongly urge members to support the early passage of the Bill.