-10operation of transparent and predictable administrative criteria rather than by having to have each benefit spelt out through a legislative process. 28. The evidence also shows that there was in fact very considerable interaction between members of the Administration on the one hand, and the Legislative Council; members of its Welfare Services Panel; and the Panel’s Subcommittee; on the other, in relation to the new residence requirement. There was therefore in fact a substantial measure of public consultation and accountability. The funding of the social welfare system as a whole is subject to approval by the Legislative Council’s Finance Committee. E.2 29. The Court of Appeal’s approach to the Article 36 right The Court of Appeal rejected Madam Kong’s argument as it was then put regarding the content of the Article 36 right, namely, that it “confers upon all Hong Kong residents a right to social welfare subject only to such restriction as is limited by law; which is to say, statute law or common law formulated with such precision as the occasion demands and which is accessible”.19 30. Stock VP saw as incurable defects in that argument, among other matters, its attempt to confer a right to all forms of social welfare regardless of eligibility criteria or level of benefit;20 its tendency to ignore the sheer width and variety of social welfare benefits in Hong Kong while “cherry-picking” the one CSSA facet;21 and its isolation of the Government’s social welfare obligations 19 Court of Appeal §50 and §69. 20 Court of Appeal §53. 21 Court of Appeal §§55-60.