政府已多次在不同场合公开表明，无计划在维港内进行大规模填海造地作房屋或其他用途。然而，协会只凭二、三十年前早已过时的填海计划，甚至不惜虚拟图片，试图暗示政府有意进行大规模填海，完全偏离事实。

　　因应协会的无理指控，政府必须提出以下事实，以正视听：

　　事实1：修例建议并无削弱法院功能，亦无损市民的司法覆核权利

　　过去法院判决表明条例所载的“不准填海推定”可透过证明填海工程有“凌驾性公众需要”来推翻。判决亦订明“凌驾性公众需要”涉及三个考虑因素。当局是次修例，针对大规模填海，不但维持“不准填海推定”，更把三个考虑因素写入法例。日后行政会议决定填海工程是否有“凌驾性公众需要”时，必须考虑该三个因素。如果不满决定，市民可一如目前提出司法覆核。

　　事实2：修例建议为改善海滨拆墙松绑，绝非为大型填海铺路

　　我们必须指出，修订法例不是为大规模填海开路，而是为了提升海滨畅达性、优化海滨地带供公众享用，以及加强海港的功能。政府文件列举修例后的受惠工程全属改善海滨项目，日后可拆墙松绑，按照精简程序推行，回应社区诉求。

　　事实3：当局一直有回复协会，有理有据回应质疑

　　协会声称政府未有回应其解释法例的要求。事实上：(a) 当局在2023年3月和2024年6月两度咨询海滨事务委员会的意见，协会是该委员会的成员，当局在会上均已现场回应协会的提问; (b) 协会在2024年8月2日在报章刊载广告，发展局当天已回应对方;协会最新于2024年12月12日发出来信，政府随后于20日已回复。然而，协会坚持己见，漠视当局回应及就修例提出的理据。

　　这次修例获立法会跨党派支持，并得到海滨事务委员会大部分委员的支持，公众亦普遍支持修例。政府会全力配合立法会的审议工作，让《条例草案》尽早获得通过和实施，为市民带来更好的海滨体验。

　　【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imply that the Government intends to carry out large-scale reclamation in the Victoria Harbour, by making reference to outdated reclamation plans 20 or even 30 years ago, and even making use of fictitious images, with no regard to facts at all.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.