對于保護(hù)海港協(xié)會(協(xié)會)今日就政府提出的《2024年保護(hù)海港(修訂)條例草案》召開記者會，當(dāng)中部分內(nèi)容與事實(shí)不符，我們嚴(yán)正作出以下澄清：

　　政府已多次在不同場合公開表明，無計(jì)劃在維港內(nèi)進(jìn)行大規(guī)模填海造地作房屋或其他用途。然而，協(xié)會只憑二、三十年前早已過時(shí)的填海計(jì)劃，甚至不惜虛擬圖片，試圖暗示政府有意進(jìn)行大規(guī)模填海，完全偏離事實(shí)。

　　因應(yīng)協(xié)會的無理指控，政府必須提出以下事實(shí)，以正視聽：

　　事實(shí)1：修例建議并無削弱法院功能，亦無損市民的司法覆核權(quán)利

　　過去法院判決表明條例所載的“不準(zhǔn)填海推定”可透過證明填海工程有“凌駕性公眾需要”來推翻。判決亦訂明“凌駕性公眾需要”涉及三個(gè)考慮因素。當(dāng)局是次修例，針對大規(guī)模填海，不但維持“不準(zhǔn)填海推定”，更把三個(gè)考慮因素寫入法例。日后行政會議決定填海工程是否有“凌駕性公眾需要”時(shí)，必須考慮該三個(gè)因素。如果不滿決定，市民可一如目前提出司法覆核。

　　事實(shí)2：修例建議為改善海濱拆墻松綁，絕非為大型填海鋪路

　　我們必須指出，修訂法例不是為大規(guī)模填海開路，而是為了提升海濱暢達(dá)性、優(yōu)化海濱地帶供公眾享用，以及加強(qiáng)海港的功能。政府文件列舉修例后的受惠工程全屬改善海濱項(xiàng)目，日后可拆墻松綁，按照精簡程序推行，回應(yīng)社區(qū)訴求。

　　事實(shí)3：當(dāng)局一直有回復(fù)協(xié)會，有理有據(jù)回應(yīng)質(zhì)疑

　　協(xié)會聲稱政府未有回應(yīng)其解釋法例的要求。事實(shí)上：(a) 當(dāng)局在2023年3月和2024年6月兩度咨詢海濱事務(wù)委員會的意見，協(xié)會是該委員會的成員，當(dāng)局在會上均已現(xiàn)場回應(yīng)協(xié)會的提問; (b) 協(xié)會在2024年8月2日在報(bào)章刊載廣告，發(fā)展局當(dāng)天已回應(yīng)對方;協(xié)會最新于2024年12月12日發(fā)出來信，政府隨后于20日已回復(fù)。然而，協(xié)會堅(jiān)持己見，漠視當(dāng)局回應(yīng)及就修例提出的理據(jù)。

　　這次修例獲立法會跨黨派支持，并得到海濱事務(wù)委員會大部分委員的支持，公眾亦普遍支持修例。政府會全力配合立法會的審議工作，讓《條例草案》盡早獲得通過和實(shí)施，為市民帶來更好的海濱體驗(yàn)。

　　【Development Bureau seriously refutes misleading remarks by the Society for Protection of the Harbour】

　　Regarding the press conference convened by the Society for Protection of the Harbour (SPH) today on the Protection of the Harbour (Amendment) Bill 2024 (the Bill) put forward by the Government, we would like to make the following serious clarifications in response to some factually incorrect claims made by SPH:

　　The Government has reiterated on different occasions that there is no plan to initiate large-scale reclamation in the Victoria Harbour to form land for housing or other developments. SPH, however, attempted to imply that the Government intends to carry out large-scale reclamation in the Victoria Harbour, by making reference to outdated reclamation plans 20 or even 30 years ago, and even making use of fictitious images, with no regard to facts at all.

　　In response to SPH’s groundless allegations, the Government has to set the record straight by pointing out the following facts:

　　Fact 1: The proposed legislative amendments would not undermine the function of the courts nor the right to judicial review

　　The Court's previous judgment has already provided that the “presumption against reclamation” stipulated in the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance may be rebutted when an “overriding public need” is substantiated for the reclamation. The judgment has also set out the three considerations involved in the “overriding public need” test. Insofar as large-scale reclamation is concerned, the legislative amendments proposed by the Government would not only retain the “presumption against reclamation”, but would also incorporate the three considerations into the statutes. Accordingly, when determining whether there is an “overriding public need” for a reclamation proposal in future, the Executive Council will have to take into account these three considerations. Any person aggrieved by the determination may apply for judicial review as usual.

　　Fact 2: The proposed legislative amendments seek to facilitate harbourfront enhancement, but not to pave the way for any large-scale reclamation in the harbour

　　We must point out that the proposed legislative amendments are not meant to pave way for any large-scale reclamation in the Victoria Harbour. Instead, they are meant to provide more facilitation for initiatives to improve harbourfront connectivity, enhance harbourfront areas for public enjoyment, and strengthen harbour functions. All the works which can be benefitted from the legislative amendment, as set out in the Government’s paper, are harbour enhancement projects. With the facilitation provided under the Bill, these projects can be pursued in future under a streamlined mechanism, so as to better respond to the aspirations of the community.

　　Fact 3: The Government has all along been making responses to SPH’s queries, and has set out in such replies the grounds in support of our stand

　　The SPH claimed that the Government had not responded to its request for an explanation regarding the legislative proposals. The fact, however, is, that (a) the Harbourfront Commission (HC), of which the SPH is a member, was consulted twice in March 2023 and June 2024, and we made responses to SPH’s questions on the spot; (b) when SPH placed an advertisement in newspapers on 2 August 2024, the Development Bureau made immediate response on the same day. In the case of SPH's latest letter dated 12 December 2024, the Government sent its reply on 20 December 2024. It is SPH which kept maintaining its own views and ignored the Government's responses and justifications for the legislative proposals.

　　The legislative amendments met with cross-party support from the LegCo and most HC members were supportive. The public also expressed general support for the amendment exercise. The Government will fully support LegCo's examination of the Bill, with a view to enabling the passage of the Bill as soon as possible, so as to bring the public a better harbourfront experience.