THURSDAY, 23 MAY 2002 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
                                ____

The Council met at 14:02.

The Deputy Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr K D S DURR: Chairman, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:

That the Council -

(1) notes with alarm the gathering food crisis in Southern Africa and the plight of millions that are beginning to starve in the region;

(2) accepts the strategic importance of agriculture in South Africa and the need for basic foodstuffs at affordable prices to be available from South Africa to the other countries in the region;

(3) takes note of the -

   (a)  recent increased subsidies to farmers in the USA to keep them in
       production; and


   (b)  continuing large-scale support that agriculture receives in  the
       European Union, Japan and elsewhere;

(4) calls on the Government to take steps to ensure the continued food safety of South Africa as well as the physical and financial protection of those who live and work in our countryside, producing the food we need; (5) proudly acknowledges the role of agricultural development with regard to the growth and stability of our region, including the role of the agri-industrial and foodprocessing sectors, as well as beneficiated agricultural and food exports; and

(6) proudly notes that South Africa remains one of the world’s few net agricultural surplus food exporters and that we need to nurture and preserve this national asset.

Mr M A SULLIMAN: Chair, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:

That the Council -

(1) notes the embarrassing failure of the DP leadership to account for funding made to the party;

(2) further notes that this failure was confirmed before the Desai commission on Tuesday, 21 May 2002, when Mr Hennie Bester’s testimony clearly contradicted what Mr Gerald Morkel had said in a statement on 12 April this year about a donation of R500 000 allegedly made to the party by one Jürgen Harksen;

(3) expresses its concern about these unashamed violations of the principles of accountability and transparency and about their apartheid-style spy shenanigans in the Western Cape Legislature;

(4) expresses the opinion that this immoral conduct by DP public representatives confirms the widely held belief that the DP is a party in decay and lacks moral leadership; and

(5) expresses the firm belief that it goes against the grain of the Moral Regeneration Initiative spearheaded by the ANC-led Government and all other moral initiatives by civil society.

Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the Council I shall move:

That the Council -

(1) notes that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development accused Archbishop Tutu of hypocrisy and used the shelter of Parliament to do so;

(2) further notes that he did so to avoid taking responsibility for the political favouritism displayed by the latest series of presidential pardons;

(3) recognises that -

   (a)  the TRC process was designed to expose, and  thereby  heal,  the
       wounds of our divided past; and


   (b)  it did so at great emotional and financial cost to  our  nation;
       and   (4) therefore expresses regret at the fact that President Mbeki chose  to
   negate this healing process by ignoring the TRC and pardoning  brutal
   killers simply because of their political allegiances.

Ms C S BOTHA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move:

That the Council -

(1) notes the remarks by President Mbeki when he criticised local and provincial government institutions for their failure to deliver services;

(2) further notes that the ANC regularly blames institutional incapacity for their failures, but appears to take few practical steps to address this need; and

(3) reminds the ANC that in a democracy their majority should not render them unfeeling about the needs of the voters. MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

                      (The Late Curnick Ndlovu)

Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, I am glad that the hon Shenge is here when I move this motion without notice:

That the Council -

(1) notes with deep regret and sadness the passing away of our compatriot, colleague and comrade, the hon Curnick Ndlovu, member of the National Assembly;

(2) notes that -

   (a)  Comrade Ndlovu was a true revolutionary in  every  respect,  and
       spent his entire life in pursuit  of  the  emancipation  of  our
       people;


   (b)  his contribution was second to none; and


   (c)  he  was  freedom-loving,  a  unionist,  a  soldier  of  uMkhonto
       weSizwe, a founder member of  the  United  Democratic  Front,  a
       community leader and an inspiration to the youth of our country;

(3) expresses its gratitude for the unselfish contribution that Comrade Ndlovu made in the struggle for liberation, both as an activist and as a member of Parliament; and

(4) conveys its sincere condolences to his family in their sad bereavement.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

            ESTABLISHMENT OF AFRICA CENTRE IN KWAHLABISA

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

(1) notes that the Mkhanyakude district in KwaHlabisa on the North Coast of KwaZulu-Natal is known as a place that is heavily affected by HIV/Aids;

(2) further notes that this is set to change with the establishment of the Africa Centre, which is tasked with doing research on a vaccine for the disease;

(3) believes that this centre will provide much-needed research which will assist in policies we make with regards to health and population development in the country; and

(4) applauds the stakeholders concerned for their commitment to addressing the problems of HIV/Aids.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

           LAUNCH OF PAPRIKA PRODUCTION AND EXPORT VENTURE

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

(1) notes that Pamodzi Investment Holdings and Government have jointly put up R120 million to launch a new paprika production and export venture, Nocal, that will empower 55 individual emerging black farmers;

(2) further notes that the venture that is expected to bring in foreign exchange earnings of R70 million a year is to be established on the banks of the Orange River;

(3) also notes that central Government and the Northern Cape Government have jointly contributed R20 million towards the creation of our irrigation scheme and infrastructure; and

(4) believes this initiative confirms the commitment of both national and provincial government to co-operate for economic development and prosperity.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

        BEST WISHES TO BAFANA BAFANA ON MATCH AGAINST TURKEY

                         (Draft Resolution)

Prince B Z ZULU: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

(1) wishes Bafana Bafana well in their second warm-up match for the World Cup against the Republic of Turkey, which is under way as we are gathered here;

(2) hopes that their second match ever on Asian soil in the city of Hong Kong today will be as successful as their first against Scotland;

(3) expresses the hope that the results in this three-nation tournament will spur them on to higher honours in World Cup 2002, which starts in Korea/Japan on 31 May 2002; and

(4) resolves to assure the team of our unwavering support in their quest for World Cup glory.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

              CONGRATULATIONS TO HOME AFFAIRS OFFICIAL

                         (Draft Resolution)

Ms C S BOTHA: Chairperson, I move without notice: That the Council -

(1) congratulates Ms Thembi Buthelezi from the Department of Home Affairs for her amazing dedication to duty in managing to obtain a temporary passport for Ms C S Botha within three hours, from start to finish; and

(2) commends this as an example of Batho Pele to all departmental officials.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

     RESPONSE OF LOTUS RIVER COMMUNITY TO GANG-RELATED VIOLENCE

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

(1) notes the ongoing gang-related violence on the Cape Flats which has led to numerous deaths;

(2) commends the Lotus River community, especially those involved at the schools, who are working hard to build a safe environment;

(3) expresses its sympathy to this community that has had to go to great lengths to protect themselves;

(4) calls on the Government to take their lead from the members of the Lotus River community; and

(5) urges the Minister of Safety and Security to actively ensure that this matter is addressed immediately.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

    LINKING OF JSE SECURITIES EXCHANGE AND LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council notes that -

(1) President Thabo Mbeki launched the new trading system that will link our securities exchange (JSE) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE) on Friday morning; and

(2) the project initiates the new strategic alliance between the LSE and the JSE, and is a significant move towards aligning and linking the JSE equity market with global financial markets.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

                          IMMIGRATION BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I take this opportunity to welcome the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and call upon him to address this House.

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: I thank the Chairperson and hon members for that welcome. I would like to say I take great pride this afternoon in fulfilling a most rewarding task.

Today the National Council of Provinces has the opportunity to close a chapter of policy formulation which has engaged public debate for several years. However, there is a sense that aspects of this debate are bound to continue. This is due both to the very nature of the subject matter and to the outcome of the parliamentary process.

The Immigration Bill comes before the National Council of Provinces in terms of the procedures laid down in section 75 of the Constitution, in terms of which only the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces is sought. The Bill before us is the same as approved by the National Assembly last Friday, as the select committee did not recommend any amendments.

The Bill, as approved by the National Assembly, was fundamentally different from the one introduced by Cabinet in many respects, not least of which is that it replaced the central core of the migration policy which lies in the issuance of work permits. Now, as introduced, the Bill provided for a market-driven technique satisfying the needs test which determines which foreigners are needed by our economy. This needs test centred on a licensing fee, which was to be paid by the employer, leaving the employer to determine the needed foreigners, their job descriptions, qualifications and length of temporary employment.

As I understood it, the needs test based on a licensing fee was considered by the joint meetings of the select committee and the portfolio committee until 8 May. Only on the morning of 15 May was I informally informed that the market-related approach, espoused by Cabinet and set out in the Bill as introduced, was going to be substituted by the committees with a quota system, reflecting the statist philosophy of a command economy. This was the product of extensive redrafting in which my department was not involved. The Bill was voted on during the afternoon of April 15 by the select committee, without having had the time to consider the range of technical and administrative amendments and considerations submitted by my department to highlight real difficulties and some mistakes in the redrafted Bill.

Now, during the select committee stage, my department resubmitted the considerations and proposed amendments which could not be considered by the select committee, inclusive of additional issues which arose out of how the text of the Bill was partially transformed as it moved from the portfolio committee to the National Assembly. I am given to understand that during the committee stage the majority party tabled a proposal to scrap the quota system and replace it with a labour certification process similar to the one currently employed in terms of the Aliens Control Act.

Unfortunately, the select committee decided that there would not be sufficient time to entertain any amendment to the Bill, but sent me a message inviting me to table amendments in Cabinet as soon as possible to change the Immigration Act once it is adopted and its implementation begins. The message indirectly conveyed to me from the select committee highlights the need to formulate such amendments in consultation with all role-players and stakeholders.

One can only assume that the main object of this request from the select committee relates to the issuance of work permits, since the main proposed amendments before the committee, which the committee did not have the time to entertain, were on this subject, except for the many technically and administratively necessary amendments which were submitted by my department. We are faced then with the unusual situation in which a Bill is substantially transformed in the portfolio committee and by members of Parliament in about five days, without the assistance or even any input whatsoever from the responsible line-function department.

The majority party then tries to change the work product of the Bill during the select committee stage and runs out of time. The select committee could also not attend to objective technical and administrative problems and look into the possibility that certain clauses were deleted on account of a late- night minuting error of the deliberations of the portfolio committee, which could not be caught before the National Assembly stage, as the Bill was distributed only minutes prior to our deliberations.

Against this background, I, as the Minister responsible, am requested now to introduce amendments to change Parliament’s work product, which in turn changed what Cabinet had introduced in Parliament. For instance, the perception arises that Parliament is not satisfied with the command economy quota system introduced in this Bill, as much as I am not satisfied with it. In fact, my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Industry, said as much to me yesterday.

However, I do not have a clear indication of why Parliament was not satisfied with the market-based licensing technique introduced by Cabinet, which was, in fact, consonant with this age of globalisation in which we are living. Therefore, I will be not in the position of merely producing an amendment the day after the enactment of this Bill, as much as I would like to do that, as one would need to interrogate many questions and will do so in consultation with all those who participated in this process in the past six years. Without doubt and with the full measure I am capable of, I will comply, of course, with the request of Parliament. I am a democrat and as a Minister of state, I will not move in a direction different from that which Parliament wishes to chart for immigration control in this country.

However, it must be made abundantly clear that no amendment, with the exception of technical amendments, can be made overnight in respect of developing something which may replace the quota system, unless I am asked to reintroduce in Parliament the scheme originally adopted by Cabinet and was based on a licensing fee. We negotiated this scheme extensively, and studied all aspects of its implications and prepared for its implementation.

If we are to propose something different, which is not yet known to us, we need to negotiate it with all stakeholders and role-players, especially those who have already registered their annoyance with the formulation of a quota system in a matter of days, for the first time ever in our debate and without their input. This will take time. In the meantime, we will be duty- bound to implement the Immigration Bill as adopted by this Parliament.

I want to assure Parliament that we will make the quota system work for as long as it is the law of the country. In my opinion, it is by far the worst possible option, in terms of the difficulty of implementation and because of the procedures it requires both in respect of the formulation of categories and in respect of the processing of each single application. It is going to be difficult, but we will leave no stone unturned to try to make it work to the best of our capacity. The Department of Home Affairs has highly dedicated officials as we have just heard from the hon member a few minutes ago. Our training programmes on the Immigration Bill have already begun and we will now need to readjust them to meet the requirements.

The Department of Home Affairs will need to be provided with significant assistance from the Department of Trade and Industry in the formulation of quotas. Yesterday, my colleague the Minister of Trade and Industry was quoted by the media as stating that the Immigration Bill had been improved. Reportedly he feels that it will be easy to implement it in a way that will not hinder the immigration of foreigners with their needed skills. Therefore I trust that he will be forthcoming with the information necessary to delineate the characterising features of each and every category of potentially needed foreign workers, together with a numeric evaluation which can withstand both public and judicial scrutiny. His sense of confidence does therefore give us great hope.

Parliament and the public must accept our commitment to implement the quota system as well as the fact that we are going to to have to go through a steep learning curve. We never focused on this possibility as it was ruled out almost immediately at the outset, at the Green Paper stage of the process. In this respect, I must clarify a common misperception, that the Bill introduced by Cabinet contained a quota system. This is absolutely untrue. The only provision in the previous draft of the Bill was for quotas which my department could elect to determine in very special circumstances as a fast track for a specified category of specially needed foreigners who would not need to pay the licensing fee and could receive a permit even without a job offer. We were not required to use that option, and if we had been, we would have used it in reaction to a need which would in itself have identified the number of foreigners and the features of their category; for instance, if we were to create a fast track for 100 000 computer programmers. This is obviously not a quota system. Therefore, our efforts to develop a quota system will need to begin from scratch.

Our efforts to build a quota system have already begun and my officials are collecting and processing information right now. The quotas for this year will need to be of a more general nature to simplify their administration. In fact, it must be appreciated that in addition to the difficulty in delineating categories, we need to establish complex internal procedures to verify that the available job position fits the category and that the qualifications and curriculum of the applicant do the same.

At times this will be extremely difficult, but we will try our best to create techniques that reduce administrative discretion and avoid the interminable delays which are often associated with our having to supplement our lack of in-house expertise with consultations with other organs of state and a large number of institutions of civil society. There is some reminiscent knowledge about quota systems in my department, as they experimented with this technique in 1987 before abandoning it.

The process ahead is going to be much more difficult than we hoped for additional reasons. Nevertheless, we will endure the uphill path and deliver to the country the best results we can produce. In fact, the original Bill made provision for an expedited form of rationalisation and restructuring which would create a short cut through some of the relevant legislative provisions. This was necessary because the Immigration Act will bring about not only a major legislative reform but also a major administrative reform of the Department of Home Affairs itself. We will need to change what our officials do to meet the new requirements. All this will take time and it is likely that things may get worse before they get better. We must accept that we will need to go from the old to the new through a difficult process of readjustment, retraining and restructuring.

However, I am confident that at the end of this process we will all be satisfied that it was worth going through the difficulties of this reform. Our country can now take pride in having a much better system of migration control in spite of all the things that I have said. We have closed the final chapter in transforming the legal system and the policy framework we inherited from colonialism and apartheid. The Aliens Control Act was apartheid’s last Act in 1991, and today the NCOP has the privilege of declaring that in terms of policies and legislation, the new South Africa is now fully fledged and grown.

The Immigration Bill places South Africa on a par with many other countries in respect of many of its provisions, especially in respect of investors’ and intracompany transfer permits. In many respects the Bill before us is an excellent Bill. Its real final effect will depend on the resources that Parliament will make available for its implementation, which will need to be increased from the present allocations and from what we originally estimated as the financial implications of the Bill. There is no doubt that many of the changes call for increased utilisation of administrative capacity, especially in respect of the functions and procedures which the original Bill had delegated to chartered accountants and other organs of civil society.

The Bill now requires the department to maintain a parallel system of capacity and functions even in respect of these matters. Our intention was to diminish the administrative capacity we employed for the processing and issuance of permits so as to increase the administrative capacity available to deter, detect and deport illegal foreigners. Unless we deal with those who are outside the system and continue to stay in the Republic illegally without fear of being detected and deported, anything we place in our immigration laws will be of little value. Many members will have watched television last night and seen the big demonstration that took place in front of my office in Pretoria yesterday and the pronouncement by one luminary among the demonstrators who said that those who are in the country must be allowed to be here. I wish I knew one country on planet earth which did that.

Our promise was that we would open the front door of immigration wider, while we would close the back door to illegal immigration. We will need more resources and capacity to fulfil this promise. We are at the beginning of a process and Parliament has my pledge this afternoon that both I and my department will do our respective best to make it work in the interests of the country. [Applause.]

Ms L JACOBUS: Chairperson, just to outline the process that I am going to be following, I will be speaking largely on the principle of the Bill and outlining the process that we have been following up to today. Colleagues speaking afterwards will focus on some of the details of some of the clauses that we have dealt with.

It is once more my honour and privilege to rise to address this House on a very important piece of legislation, namely the Immigration Bill. It is indeed also a relief to finally witness the passage of this Bill through the two Houses of Parliament. I am sure the Minister will agree as well. I think it is particularly so for the members of the select committee who had study groups not only in the joint committee, but also in their various political parties, which worked very hard to get us where we are today. All of them need to be commended for this.

I want to highlight a few points from the preamble of the Bill, and these are: ``Setting in place a new system of immigration control which ensures that - firstly, the needs and aspirations of the age of globalisation are respected; secondly, the South African economy may have access at all times to the full measure of needed contributions by foreigners; thirdly, ports of entry are efficiently administered and managed; fourthly, immigration control is performed within the highest applicable standards of human rights protection; and, fifthly, xenophobia is prevented and countered both within Government and civil society.

These are some of the points, amongst others. Judging from the above, the aims and principles of the Bill are very clear.

To move on to the process, I want to start with the public participation process. The process of public participation and consultation by the committees was very extensive and lasted for one whole week. It is also just unfortunate that in that one week we could not accommodate everybody who wanted to make submissions, but we tried our level best.

Presentations ranged from Business SA to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. We spent many hours listening to and interrogating the various inputs from these stakeholders. Some even engaged us during tea breaks and lunch, because they felt very strongly about the views they were putting forward.

To go on to the parliamentary process, because of the time constraints Parliament faced by the June 2 deadline placed upon it by the Constitutional Court ruling, the portfolio committee and the select committee decided to embark on joint sittings to expedite the processing of the Bill. Even though the whole select committee was not present all the time, dedicated members of all political parties were present at all times and participated in all the proceedings of the joint committee.

I thought I should mention this because members of the public and even some of our colleagues might question why the NCOP only spent two days processing the Bill. When deliberations started, there were approximately eight areas of contention amongst political parties. But I must say that through bilateral discussions and negotiations between parties, these were eventually narrowed down to three.

The three areas are, largely, the work permit, which is the current clause 19 in the Bill; the restructuring of the department, which was subsequently removed; and the section on offences, clause 49. These were also subsequently the only areas that were voted on by the portfolio committee. I am mentioning this just to indicate the lengths to which political parties, all of us, tried to go to find each other during the process of deliberating. On the three clauses I have just mentioned, we have agreed to disagree.

It is clear from the debates we had in the joint committee that all political parties would have loved to see a better product than we have before us today. The amendments put forward by all of us during the deliberations bear testimony to this. What made deliberations even more difficult was the unclear position on the status of our migration policy, or what is commonly referred to as the White Paper on migration. I hope I will have a later opportunity to actually ask the Minister to clarify exactly what the status of that White Paper is.

The state law adviser commented that there was no way in which we could have made wholesale amendments to the Bill without rewriting it. Given the time limitations, we chose not to do that and not to go that route.

All Bills that pass through Parliament have their shortcomings and this one is no exception. There is the saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is therefore only on implementation that we will be able to identify these shortcomings and loopholes. It is then perfectly within the mandate of the Minister to present these to us and to propose further amendments for consideration by Parliament. It is in that light that I made my comments yesterday and put the request to the Minister of Home Affairs. We all agree that no law is cast in stone and is subject to amendment as and when the conditions on the ground change. I think there is no disagreement among any of us that that is the case now.

To conclude, I would like to thank the Minister and his department for their tireless efforts in assisting and guiding us through the long and difficult times of deliberations. Two of the people from his department are here today - Mr Lambinon, the deputy director-general, and Adv Malatji, who is the legal adviser in the department. The parliamentary liaison person also sat with us throughout, sometimes for very long hours. A special word of thanks also goes to the state law advisers, Adv Kellner and Adv Tladi, who slaved through many long hours with us.

Last, but not least, I would like to thank the members of the select committee who, over the past month, worked very diligently and attended our meetings almost on a daily basis, sometimes shifting aside other responsibilities to facilitate the smooth passage of this Bill through the NCOP. I therefore propose the adoption of this Bill on behalf of the committee. [Applause.]

Ms E C GOUWS: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon colleagues, friends, the Department of Home Affairs has spent five years working on this Immigration Bill. Business has been pressing for a new immigration law to speed up recruitment of foreign professionals to fill vacancies and posts evacuated by skilled workers who have left the country since the mid-1980s.

Business organisations estimate the skills deficit at approximately 500 000 people. Since 1995, 5 000 people have immigrated to South Africa every year, but businesses complain about the cost and delays involved in foreign recruitment. We definitely need managed immigration that can contribute to the stimulation of economic growth and the development of South Africa.

In the end we in the NCOP were handed the Bill, which was still, as business people say, an obstacle to economic growth. My party agrees that the Bill is an enormous improvement on the present levels of uncertainty. But we have our reservations on at least three clauses of the Bill. We agree with the Minister, who said, ``The Bill represents a monumental step ahead and sets our country on a much stronger footing to cope with the issues of migration control that are bound to rise exponentially in the years to come.’’

Ons het baie gehoor van waarom en waarvoor en hoekom die wetsontwerp nodig is, hoekom dit van kardinale belang is. Ons het gehoor van ons verskille en van die verskillende klousules. Ek wil nou weer op ‘n meer praktiese manier vir die agb Minister voorbeelde noem van waar daar onduidelikhede is en waarom hierdie wetgewing so broodnodig is.

Daar is onduidelikheid of die korporatiewe permitte waarvolgens ‘n maatskappy toestemming kan kry om ‘n aantal buitelanders na die land te bring deel is van die kwotabepalings. Kragtens laasgenoemde moet die staat bepaal watter kundigheid en vaardighede skaars is en daarkragtens werkpermitte aan buitelanders uitreik. Dit is ook waarom die sakesektor die kwotastelsel as tydrowend en burokraties afmaak.

Hoewel my party saamstem dat ons kundige mense broodnodig het, is die toestroming van onwettige immigrante na ons land nog ‘n groot kopseer. Baie van hierdie mense het geen werkpermitte nie, of vervalste permitte is aan die orde van die dag. Dit lyk my dit is makliker om as onwettige immigrant die land in te kom en ‘n las vir die land te word as om as wettige immigrant in te kom en ‘n bate vir die land te wees.

Ons mense - en ek praat nou veral van die Oos-Kaap en in die besonder van Port Elizabeth - kla dat veral immigrante - en ek gaan die land se naam noem - van Senegal besig is om die lewe vir Suid-Afrikaners te bemoeilik en ook werkgeleenthede van hulle weg te neem. Hierdie mense is onder andere ook veral straatventers en verkoop minderwaardige namaaksels van bekende handelsnaamprodukte teen pryse wat mededingend is met die ware jakob.

Baie van hulle is ook werkloos en in die sentrale deel van Port Elizabeth het hulle al ‘n deel afgebaken wat hulle as hul land beskou waar húl landswette geld. Die polisie het my meegedeel dat hulle as SAPD nie daar toegelaat word nie. Hulle mag nie daar inkom nie. Misdaad soos dwelmhandel, ens vier daar hoogty. Ons polisiebeamptes is al só gedemoraliseer dat hulle nie meer hul pligte toegewyd en met erns kan uitvoer nie. Ek sê hierdie dinge omdat die polisie van die Humewood-stasie in Port Elizabeth my gevra het om dit in die openbaar te sê. [Tussenwerpsels.] Húlle! Hierdie onwettige immigrante van Senegal is volgens die polisie ook die skuldiges wat veral verbind word met die grootskaalse selfoondiefstalle wat nou in die stad aan die orde van die dag is. Hierdie mense het hierdie tipe diefstal tot ‘n absolute kuns vervolmaak. Hiervan kan ek getuig, want ek was ook al aan die verkeerde kant van hulle flinke steelvermoë. Die polisie het nie ‘n oomblik gehuiwer nie om die diefstal toe te skryf aan Senegalese wat onwettig in die land is. Hulle opereer gewoonlik so in pare of as ‘n drietal, en spits hulle veral toe op winkelsentrums en die strandgebiede.

Hoewel daar nou verskeie wysigings voorgestel is deur beide die ANC en die IVP, het die gekose komitee van die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies besluit om die wetgewing goed te keur soos dit in die Nasionale Vergadering gedebatteer en goedgekeur is. Ons doen egter ‘n beroep op die Minister om weer te dink. Daar is groot tekortkominge. Daar moet geleentheid gegee word om voort te gaan om ‘n wet daar te stel wat tot die voordeel van die hele Suid-Afrika sal strek. Ons het reeds in die komitee aangedui watter klousules gewysig moet word. Ek gaan dit nie nou herhaal nie. Ons het wetgewing nodig wat die ongewenstes sal uithou, maar wat die nuttiges sal binnenooi. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[We have often heard why and for what reasons we need this Bill, why it is necessary, and why it is of vital importance. We have heard of our differences and of the different clauses. I would like to now, in a more practical manner, cite examples to the hon the Minister of where there are uncertainties and why this legislation is so essential.

There is a lack of clarity about whether the corporate permits, whereby a company gets permission to bring a number of foreigners into the country, are part of the quota provisions. In terms of the latter the state has to determine which expertise and skills are scarce and in accordance with that issue work permits to foreigners. This is why the corporate sector regards the quota system as time-consuming and bureaucratic.

Although my party agrees that we badly need experts, the influx of illegal immigrants to our country is a huge headache. Many of these people do not have work permits or forged permits are the order of the day. It seems to be easier to come into the country as an illegal immigrant and become a burden to the country than to come into the country as a legal immigrant and be an asset to the country.

Our people - and I am now speaking especially of the Eastern Cape and in particular of Port Elizabeth - complain that especially immigrants, and I am going to mention the country’s name, from Senegal are making the lives of South Africans difficult and are also taking away their job opportunities. These people, amongst other things, are also street vendors and sell inferior imitations of known brand name products at prices which are competitive with the real McCoy. Many of them are also unemployed and in the central part of Port Elizabeth they have cordoned off a part which they regard as their country where their country’s laws apply. The police has informed me that as the SAPS they are not allowed there. They are not allowed to enter. Crime such as drug trafficking and so forth reign supreme. Our police officers have been so demoralised that they cannot execute their duties in a dedicated and serious manner any longer. I am saying these things because the police from the Humewood station in Port Elizabeth asked me to say this in public. [Interjections.] Them!

These illegal immigrants from Senegal are also, according to the police, the criminals who are connected with the large-scale cellphone thefts which are now the order of the day in the city. These people have perfected this type of theft to an absolute artform.

I can attest to this, because I have also been on the wrong side of their clever stealing ability. The police did not hesitate for one moment to blame the theft on the Senegalese who are in the country illegally. They usually operate in pairs or as a threesome, and mainly target the shopping centres and beaches.

Although many amendments have been proposed by both the ANC and the IFP, the select committee of the National Council of Provinces decided to approve the legislation as it was debated and approved in the National Assembly. We are, however, appealing to the Minister to think again. There are huge shortcomings.

There should be an opportunity to go ahead and draft an Act which will be to the benefit of the whole of South Africa. We have already indicated in the committee which clauses should be amended. I am not going to repeat this now. We need legislation which will keep out the undesirable people, and invite in those who are useful.]

We must get consensus and get the best for our country. We have a great country, that is why we have these problems with illegal foreigners. Benjamin Franklin once said: ``Beware of little expenses, a small leak will sink a great ship.’’ I would like to warn: One must beware of a few clauses in the Bill; they could sink the whole Immigration Bill.

My party supports the Bill. Let us put South Africa first. Come, let us do it. Kom ons doen dit. Masenzeni njalo. Idani ri ite-wozani senzeni njalo. [Applause.]

Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, hon Minister, Parliament is a wonderful place, it is a consensus-seeking device. It is wonderful that we have now reached consensus - that the Bill before the House is flawed and needs to be improved. I have a feeling - the Minister will not admit it, I know, because he is a man of integrity and a loyal man who will be loyal to his colleagues - that this Minister has been let down.

I think that the Minister is taking the rap for the incompetence and inability of Parliament and the parties to find each other. As far as I am concerned, I want to apologise to the Minister for that. I do not think he deserves it. And I know that this hon Minister knows more about economic development than most leaders in this country. There are thousands of acres of factories that he has bought. He understands the needs of the economy. I hope that in the next round hon members will produce a Bill which the Minister too will be able to be proud of.

South Africa’s principal development challenge is to generate higher levels of productive employment for our people. In order to achieve this, we must maintain a consistent level of economic growth.

South Africa is intrinsically connected to the global process, as its involvement in Africa and other parts of the world indicates. The Nepad initiative is all about bringing Africa into a global society. African economic development and growth aim to reduce poverty levels, to generate employment opportunities and to improve democratic governance. These goals are spearheaded by this country, signifying our global ambitions. If we had managed to get the Immigration Bill right, it would have enhanced South Africa’s position - hopefully, the future Bill will - as a strategic global partner and stimulated growth, investment and job creation, as well as created empowerment opportunities.

According to a study, and I quote as follows:

… emigration to the UK, US, New Zealand, Canada and Australia by the Paris-based Institute for Development Research estimated that 233 609 people left South Africa for these destinations between 1987 and 1997 - 41 000 of them professionals. Skilled workers emigrating from South Africa are estimated to have cost the country R67,8 billion in lost human capital since 1997 and this has retarded economic growth.

According to a study done in mid-1997, published by the South African Migrant Project, only about 1% of respondents to that project cited immigration as one of the most important issues facing this country. I therefore also wish to commend Minister Alec Erwin for his intervention in a desperate attempt to redress the quota system in the Bill. His intervention has failed regrettably, I suppose. But it is regrettable that the majority party that brought these amendments at this late stage made it impossible to comply with the Constitutional Court order.

We must remember that South Africa’s principal challenges are economic and moral, and not of a political nature. Minister Erwin, therefore, is correct to call for a reassessment of the work permit, which has been echoed, of course, by the Minister here today. According to a recent article in Financial Mail, South Africa has a skills shortage of between 200 000 and 500 000 positions.

All around the world countries are competing to attract and recruit the best possible global brains and skilled workers. South Africa, on the other hand, seeks to restrict their influx, or, anyhow, it is the consequence of our actions, even if we are not trying to do so.

There is a second fundamental reason that we in this party oppose the Bill. It is because of the extension of the definition of the word ``spouse’’ to include a party to a permanent heterosexual or homosexual relationship. Here, once more, the Government is finessing into this legislation a secular humanist agenda, which erodes and contradicts the basis of Judaeo- Christian family values that we as Christian democrats wish to uphold and which we believe are fundamental to a healthy society.

We understand the dilemma of the Minister. He is bound by a Constitutional Court decision. I know that. But he cannot be pleased to see this in this legislation. We predict that implementation of this aspect of the Bill will be a minefield for the Minister and will be fraudulently used to obtain permanent residence permits.

We are opposed to the Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mrs C NKUNA: Chairperson, hon Minister of Home Affairs, hon members in this House, one of the objectives of the Immigration Bill is to promote a human rights-based culture, both in Government as well as in civil society. To ensure that this is not only spoken, but implemented as well, this Bill provides for a mechanism in the form of permits that are issued to foreigners.

The ANC’s principal objection to the issuing of permits was that this authorised institutions in the private and public sectors to issue permits. By doing this, the Department of Home Affairs, we believe, was giving away a fundamental Home Affairs competency to institutions that had neither the capacity nor the competency to deal with the control of foreigners entering our country. We felt very strongly that our country’s ports of entry control would be compromised.

Allow me to talk briefly about the different types of permits that are provided for in this Bill and which are issued by the Department of Home Affairs. There are quite a number and I might not finish talking about them.

I will start with work permits. The intention of the ANC with regard to work permits has always been twofold, namely to ensure that the necessary skills found lacking in our country are replaced through the skills of foreign workers and, secondly, that the workers in our country are not unfairly disadvantaged through indiscriminate issuing of work permits to the detriment of South African workers. We believe that the manner in which the clause on work permits was originally constructed did not go far enough to accommodate these ideals.

We therefore reconstructed clause 19 in such a way that we would give impetus to these ideals. Unfortunately, time constraints placed on us by way of the court order meant that we had to proceed with this Bill and, particularly, this clause at quite a rapid pace. We have already placed on record that we would like to see this clause further amended and we look forward to doing so as soon as the amending Bill is before us. Regarding the visitor’s permit, this type of permit is issued by the department to a foreigner who holds a visa or is a citizen of a foreign state prescribed from time to time or providing other guarantees in respect of his or her departure. Essentially, visitors can come in even on a multiple-entry permit.

Then we have the diplomatic permits. This is a delegated function that the Department of Home Affairs gives to the Department of Foreign Affairs, allowing the department to issue permits to the following: an ambassador, a minister of a foreign state, a career diplomat or councillor, and an officer of a foreign government recognised by the South African Government.

Amongst the permits, the most interesting one, or the one that interests me most, is the retired person’s permit. This clause provides for people from foreign countries to retire in South Africa. But this retirement is conditional on the retiree’s financial security for life. They should have their own pensions from their country of origin payable until the day they die. This means that they are not going to affect our social grants and so on, which would mean that they are not a burden on our social development resources. We are encouraging them to retire in our country while they contribute meaningfully to our economy.

Then we have the study permit. This type of permit is provided for in clause 13 of this Bill. Foreigners intending to study in the Republic for more than three months are issued study permits by the department through the Foreign Affairs office or a designated official or an institution of learning where the foreigner intends to study. The institution has to work with the department by providing information about the foreign learner or student. Should the institution of learning not comply with the provision of this clause, the institution will then be penalised, rather than the individual instructor or lecturer, for allowing an illegal foreigner to study at the institution.

We have the treaty permit. This is another type of permit provided for by clause 14 of this Bill. It is issued by the Department of Home Affairs or the Department of Foreign Affairs in situations where, for instance, the foreigner conducts activities in the Republic in terms of an international agreement to which the Republic is party.

We have another permit called a business permit. This allows foreigners to invest finances or capital contribution in business in our country. This clause provides for the services of a chartered accountant to be employed. Those who participated in the committee will remember that we had some queries about the employment of the services of a chartered accountant. Such a permit may be issued for more than one entry to a foreigner, or multiple entry into the Republic when necessary for that person to conduct business effectively.

In our discussions with various stakeholders, it became clear that we needed to adopt a fairly flexible system of entry into our country to encourage particular investors to boost our economy. We have another permit, the corporate permit. With regard to corporate permits, we were concerned that, in terms of the original construction of this Bill, corporations would be given the authority to issue permits whenever and to whomever they deemed necessary to employ, in an ad hoc manner. Our concern was, firstly, that the potential for corruption was increased tenfold by allowing corporate entities to administer an exclusive Home Affairs competency.

Secondly, by giving carte blanche to large corporations to issue permits not only would the function of Home Affairs in this regard be devolved to the private sector, but we also run the risk of the safety and security of our country being compromised. The reconstruction of clause 21 would essentially give corporations the right to apply for a corporate permit through the Department of Home Affairs, allowing large numbers of workers in at a time when our country needs those skills.

We recognise that with the brain drain a harsh reality and in keeping with creating a climate that would encourage investment in our country, we need to eliminate as much red tape as possible. We need to investigate this in our relation to foreigners.

There is the crew permit, the medical treatment permit - unfortunately one cannot name them all.

Lastly, we have the relative permit. Clause 18 provides for a relative permit to a foreigner who is a member of the immediate family of a citizen or a resident, provided that such a citizen or resident provides the prescribed financial assurances.

In conclusion, I would to congratulate all those who worked very hard on this Bill. I know that in its current form it is not perfect, but I am confident that it will be perfect in the near future. [Applause.]

Mnr J HORNE: Mnr die Voorsitter, agb Minister en lede van die Huis, dit is vir my ‘n voorreg om deel te neem aan die bespreking oor die omstrede wetsontwerp oor immigrasie. Hierdie wetsontwerp het ‘n lang geskiedenis van bykans agt jaar, wat gekenmerk is deur misverstande, weglatings en byvoegings. Die belangrikste beginsel wat in dié wetsontwerp vervat is, is soos volg: om die koms van vreemdelinge na, hul verblyf in, en vertrek uit ons land te reguleer.

Daar is gepoog om sover moontlik aan hierdie verwagtings te voldoen. Tog is daar vele leemtes in die wetsontwerp. Alhoewel geen wetgewing heeltemal waterdig is nie, sal daar so spoedig moontlik in die nabye toekoms aandag aan hierdie gebreke geskenk moet word.

Die wetsontwerp maak ook voorsiening om geskoolde mense na die land te lok, wat kan meehelp om die baie ongeskoolde Suid-Afrikaners op te lei en sodoende entrepreneurskap te vestig en werkloosheid te verlig. Die uitreiking van sake- en werkpermitte sal beslis ‘n voordelige uitwerking op ons ekonomie hê. Dit sal ook gepas wees om weer te kyk na die kwotastelsel in die wetsontwerp. Ook sal dit wenslik wees dat, wanneer regulasies uitgevaardig word, die openbare mening in ag geneem sal word. Daar word staatgemaak op die Minister se oop gemoed.

Of hierdie wetgewing tot sy reg sal kom, sal afhang van die mate waarin die departement daarin sal slaag om daaraan beslag te gee. Prakties beteken dit dat die departement sy personeel sal moet oplei om die wetgewing te kan toepas. Tesame daarmee sal die departement voorsiening moet maak vir die nodige fondse vir die opleiding van personeel.

Ten slotte wil ek die vorige voorsitter van die portefeuljekomitee bedank vir sy bydrae. Hy het die ys gebreek. Aan die nuwe voorsitter kan ek sê hy het die afrondingswerk gedoen. Ek rig ook ‘n spesiale woord van dank aan die voorsitter van die gekose komitee, me Jacobus. Sy het ‘n reusebydrae gelewer in die totstandbrenging van die wetsontwerp. Laastens, maar nie die minste nie, ‘n woord van dank aan die personeel van die departement. Hulle was daagliks op hul pos om vrae te beantwoord. Dit het nie ongesiens verbygegaan nie. Ek rig ook ‘n spesiale woord van dank aan die agb Minister, dr Buthelezi. Hy het groot staatsmanskap aan die dag gelê deur sy erkenning van die hoogste hof in die land met die aanvaarding van die wetgewing met sy gebreke. Sy optrede herinner aan die woorde van die skrywer Longfellow: ``Die leiers op die hoogste trap, het nie gestyg met enkele stap. Wyl ander slaap en droom, het hul gewerk tot oggendsoom.’’

So is daar ook hier gewerk. Die Nuwe NP steun die wetgewing. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr J HORNE: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister and members of the House, it is a privilege for me to participate in this debate on the controversial Bill on immigration.

This Bill has a long history of almost eight years, one characterised by misunderstandings, omissions and additions. The most important principle contained in this Bill is the following: to regulate the admission of foreigners to, their residence in, and departure from our country.

As far as possible, an attempt has been made to meet these expectations. However, there are still many deficiencies in this Bill. Even though no legislation is completely watertight, we will have to pay attention to these deficiencies as soon as possible, in the foreseeable future.

This Bill also makes provision for attracting skilled people to our country who can assist in training the many unskilled South Africans and in this way establish entrepreneurship and alleviate unemployment. The issuing of business permits and work permits will definitely have an advantageous effect on our economy. It would also be appropriate to take a fresh look at the quota system in the Bill. It would also be preferable, when regulations are promulgated, for public opinion to be taken into account. We are relying on the Minister’s open mind.

Whether this legislation will come into its own will depend on the extent to which the department will succeed in giving effect to it. Practically, this means that the department will have to train its staff to apply the legislation. Coupled with this, the department will have to make provision for the necessary funds for the training of staff.

In conclusion I would like to thank the previous chairperson of the portfolio committee for his contribution. He broke the ice. To the new chairperson I would like to say that he made the finishing touches. I also extend a special word of thanks to the chairperson of the select committee, Ms Jacobus. She made an enormous contribution to the establishment of the Bill. Last but not least, a word of thanks to the staff of the department. They were at their posts daily to answer questions. This did not go unnoticed.

I also direct a special word of thanks to the hon the Minister, Dr Buthelezi. He displayed great statesmanship by acknowledging the highest court in the land through the acceptance of the legislation including its deficiencies. His actions remind one of the words of the writer Longfellow: ``The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight. But they, while their companions slept, were toiling upward in the night.’’

That is how we also worked here. The New NP supports the legislation. [Applause.]]

Mr J O TLHAGALE: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members of this august House, the Bill before this House has been a subject of intense debate between political parties and the Department of Home Affairs. In my three years’ experience as an MP, no other Bill has been interrogated as much as this one. The true situation is that even on the day of its finalisation there were still amendments lined up for tabling in an attempt to reach consensus, especially on clause 19, dealing with the quota system. However, the parties ultimately agreed to withdraw the proposed new amendments and rather to move towards meeting the constitutional deadline.

The select committee was confronted by two problems. The first one was whether to deal with the proposed amendments and thus fail to meet the constitutional deadline and, of course, to be in contempt of court. The consequences of such a failure would, in the opinion of the committee, be too enormous to contemplate. On the other hand, the committee could finalise and recommend the Bill for adoption as it is, and be castigated and ridiculed by the press as having acted as a rubber stamp. However, the latter option was, to us, the lesser of two evils, hence our support for the adoption of the Bill with the full understanding that a request would be directed to the hon the Minister to forward an amending Bill as a matter of urgency.

One needs to comment that there is a huge gulf separating us, the political parties, from one another and that we have not yet learnt to do to others as we would like them to do to us. This weakness holds disastrous consequences for our fledgling democracy, unless it is nipped in the bud.

Coming back to the Bill, it is noted that clause 57 in respect of the monitoring of borders and law enforcement has been left out. However, there is no indication of any request by any political party for its elimination. It is assumed that it was left out in error. It is some of these clauses that need urgent amendment by the department.

Furthermore, there are some other clauses, too many to mention within my time allocation, that are viewed by the Department of Home Affairs as making implementation of the proposed Act difficult. It is hoped that such issues will also be taken up, as was suggested by the chairperson of the select committee in her closing remarks yesterday.

The UCDP could not agree more with her ruling on this matter, and, regardless of who says what, the ruling of the NCOP is the best under the circumstances, and we support the Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr H T SOGONI: Chairperson, hon Minister of Home Affairs and hon members, from the very beginning of the committee process on the Bill, it became very clear that it would not be an easy and pleasant process at all, considering the various inputs made during the public hearing phase. Some presentations were very strong on human rights issues and some very firm and explicit on labour rights and protection, while some expressed serious reservations on matters relating to business and economic growth.

All these matters raised by stakeholders were genuine and quite legitimate. It therefore required a committee process through which the Department of Home Affairs and members would fully apply their minds in a sense and manner so extraordinary that it would be beyond reproach and above party- political considerations. Such an approach would give room for discussions and contributions that would all work towards what would be in the best interests of the country, taking on board, as much as possible, the recommendations of stakeholders, a give-and-take situation that would culminate in a workable and implementable piece of legislation that would serve a useful purpose for the department and the country.

I am not suggesting that the committee process did not accommodate the sentiments that I have expressed above, but the negative public and media comments that keep flowing, as well as the concerns expressed by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and other speakers in the National Assembly on 17 May 2002 and by hon members in this House today indicate that not much was achieved in the direction of reducing any differences and opposing views.

It is the UDM’s view, therefore, that this Bill, which is notoriously termed controversial and flawed, required enough time to work on it thoroughly, at least to the greater satisfaction of most of the stakeholders. Well, of course, it is not always humanly possible to satisfy everybody and to reasonably satisfy the Department of Home Affairs, which is the ultimate and primary implementing agent of this law.

However, it could not be. On Tuesday 21 May 2002, the select committee had to contend with a detailed 13-page submission by the Department of Home Affairs, in yet another effort to put its case for the committee to consider when voting on the Bill. Then the ANC and later the IFP submitted further proposed amendments to the hotly contested clause 19 of the Bill, which deals with the quota work permit.

Whereas the joint committee session took days to sort out the amendments, the select committee was expected to take one day only to do this. The abovementioned situation, which the UDM considered awkward, will therefore explain why the UDM supported, in the select committee meeting on 22 May 2002, the proposal that all the amendments that had been placed before the committee be withdrawn and that the committee proceed to vote on the Bill, subject to the committee’s firm proposal that the Home Affairs Ministry should immediately restart a comprehensive amendment process on the contested issues that would give all of us ample opportunity to reconsider the Bill and thus be able to produce a law that the Department of Home Affairs and the nation would be proud of.

The one in front of us is not a very good of piece of legislation. There can be no claim that policy issues regarding this Bill were ironed out. The UDM raised its objections to a number of clauses in the Bill during the joint stage of discussions. There is no need for me to detail them now, because the UDM’s wish is that this law should be referred back to Parliament for the relevant and necessary changes, or amendments, as soon as it is possible for the department to do so.

On the above grounds, the UDM supports the passage of the Bill. [Applause.]

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, hon Minister of Home Affairs and colleagues, the IFP voted against clauses in the Immigration Bill which were substantially changed in the National Assembly from what had been introduced by Cabinet. Some such clauses introduced a quota system as the framework to determine which foreigners were entitled to receive work permits.

The IFP has made a great investment in contributing to a process of policy formulation in immigration law, which could secure something that works for South Africa. There is unanimous consensus that we need a new and better system of migration control to correct the bureaucratic impairments which now prevent or deter needed foreigners from coming to South Africa. We have not yet opened up to the world and we still have a very insular mindset. We have this notion that we want to keep our doors closed, while the world around us is changing through an unprecedented phenomenon known as globalisation, which, for the first time in history, is bringing the whole of mankind closer together in spite of national boundaries. We wanted something which could work for South Africa and in which South Africa could take pride.

We took pride in what our Minister had tabled in Parliament with the concurrence of Cabinet. It was a modern Bill designed for the 21st century. At its core lay the proposal that one would rely on market forces to determine which foreigners are needed in South Africa. We know that Minister Buthelezi had explained this system to many foreign countries and at many international conferences and received worldwide accolades and recognition for it.

We are very distressed that in a matter of a few days, without any notice or consultation with anyone, it was sprung on South Africa out of the blue that we need to have a quota system. In the many years of policy formulation there has never been any suggestion that we would end up with a quota system. After the adoption of this quota system by the portfolio committee, there was unanimous consensus in the media and public opinion that a quota system could not work. The department itself came to us and told us that the quota system could not work.

The ANC proposed in the select committee to scrap the quota system, and the IFP supported its proposal, suggesting that we revert to what Cabinet had approved. The ANC and the IFP had the opportunity to fix what was wrong and go back to the original proposal. However, in the end, the ANC decided that no amendments would be made to the Bill.

There is also consensus that what was approved in the National Assembly contains many flaws, including a number of technical and administrative deficiencies, highlighted for us by the Department of Home Affairs. The ANC chose to ignore these problems, which we could have fixed just by accepting the good faith with which the department was bringing real problems to our attention. We should have endorsed its proposals.

The NCOP has failed to capture the historic opportunity to assert its role as a Chamber in which problems in legislation can be corrected through a real and hard second look at what is adopted in the National Assembly. We are left with a feeling of being a rubber stamp. This feeling is compounded by the request made by the Minister to amend the Act after it is adopted, inviting the Minister to fix the mistakes that the ANC itself recognised it made when it introduced the quota system.

Ms J L KGOALI: Chairperson, will the hon member take a question during or after her speech?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I am not prepared to take any questions. I am making a speech.

I feel that parliamentary democracy has proven its weakness. The ANC amended the Bill merely because it could not accept that what had been introduced by Minister Buthelezi was right. It created confusion with its amendments. It did not even feel the necessity to consult the department and now it ends up asking Minister Buthelezi to bring in additional legislation to fix the problems it created. The department tabled before us many pages of real technical and administrative concerns raised by the redrafted Bill, but we did not discuss them.

As a member of our Parliament I am very saddened by all this. I wish to thank Minister Buthelezi and the department for their patience and endurance and for their dedication and availability at all times. As a nurse, I wish them strength in determining how many foreign nurses and doctors South Africa needs and the quotas for each of their many specialisations and possible permutations in health facilities.

Noma kunjalo, i-IFP iyavumelana nomThethosivivinyo osezithebeni. Sesikucacise konke esingezwani nakho kulo mThethosivivinyo, sikucacise konke. Ubuciko bukaShenge nobuholi bakhe obunzulu benzele iNingizimu Afrika umThethosivivinyo omuhle. [Kwaphela isikhathi.] [Ihlombe.] [However, the IFP supports the Bill on the Table. We have explained everything we do not like in this Bill; we explained everything. Shenge’s skills and wisdom have produced a good Bill for South Africa. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I call upon the hon B J Tolo to address the House. I hope that his cellphone is off this time, because otherwise we will confiscate it. [Laughter.]

Mr B J TOLO: Chairperson, I can assure you that it is off and that what happened the other time was a mistake.

Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, migration is a natural phenomenon that cannot be stopped by anyone. It is so because any country has both pull and push factors, but these are not of equal strength, as some countries may have stronger pull factors than others and vice versa.

The immigration laws that apartheid South Africa passed sought to negate this objective phenomenon. That administration passed laws which made our country selectively permeable to people who wanted to immigrate. Only those they thought were on the same ideological plane as them were allowed to come in. The ruling party then said in no uncertain terms that it did not want the minds of South Africans to be contaminated or polluted with ideas alien to and different from those that they themselves propagated.

That epoch-making event, the 1994 elections in South Africa, managed to put apartheid in its rightful place: the museum of history, along side the spinning wheel. It meant that as South Africans we had to chart a new path for ourselves - a path based on democratic principles as recognised and embraced by the whole of progressive mankind.

We had and we have no illusion that the struggle to build a new society is adorned with roses. It is because we know that apartheid not only survive through the use of brutal force, but also by relying on a network of administration, which administered all the reactionary laws which kept them in power for so many decades.

Transformation, therefore, not only means changing the mindset of the bureaucracy, but also overhauling in a fundamental way all the oppressive laws which were meant to exclude, and in their place to put those that are progressive and inclusive. What we are engaged in today is but the laying of another brick in that arduous process of building a new society on the ruins of the old one.

We want to agree with the assertion that immigration policy is a key component of social and economic development in our country and indeed in any country. It is a policy that is difficult to elaborate on and it needs to be carefully considered, for if we falter we will get unintended results to the detriment of our country, and we will be judged harshly by future generations.

The Bill before us, with all the inaccuracies, is a genuine attempt by the Department of Home Affairs to address and establish a sound immigration policy for our country. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for the establishment of an advisory board. We are happy with the composition of the board as it is made up of representatives of both civil society and Government. Its functions are clearly stated, in that it advises the Minister and the department on matters relating to immigration alone.

The department needs to be very careful that this board resists the temptation of becoming a monster with tentacles like an octopus, to engulf the entire department. We further want to submit that, for the smooth running of the board, one cannot have anyone other than the chairperson of the board convening board meetings. But, of course, we want to hasten to say that the Minister or the director-general in that department can convene board meetings, in the sense that if the Minister would want to discuss something with the board or would want the board to advise him on something, the Minister can consult with the chairperson and instruct him or her to call a meeting, rather than the Minister himself or the director- general convening the board directly.

Departments do from time to time, depending on prevailing circumstances, review their own organisational structures and adopt new ones, if need be. This is regulated by the Public Service Act and other Government procedures. This is to ensure uniformity in Government departments with regard to norms and standards. It is our view, therefore, that it will not be correct to squeeze in departmental restructuring in a law that deals with only one aspect of the department’s functions. One should bear in mind that so far there are about 13 or 14 pieces of legislation, I am sure, that have to do with that department, and of all those pieces of legislation that were passed, not a single one of them included the restructuring of the department. We are therefore saying that this one must be the same as all other laws that were passed in respect of that department and should not include the restructuring of the department. That can be done elsewhere.

Once Government allows one department not to comply with the provisions of the Public Service Act and the Labour Relations Act, then this piece of legislation will not be worth the paper it is written on, and may just as well be thrown out the window. There will be no norms and standards in Government, and I do not think this is what we want. We are, however, happy that the final Bill placed before this House does not entertain the departmental organogram.

Section 49 of the Bill provides for different offences which can be committed by illegal foreigners and even South African citizens in contravention of this law.

It further provides for upper ceilings of sentences that can be served on an offender. It avoids stipulating monetary equivalents to those prison sentences, as these might be restrictive to magistrates, given the fluctuating and rising inflation rate in this country. Over and above this, the Adjustment of Fines Act of 1991 seeks to allow the Department of Justice to adjust fines, from time to time, in accordance with inflation, to allow for uniformity in fines. We therefore agree fully with the Bill being silent on these fines.

We agree with the Bill in clause 33, that there should be inspectorate units rather than investigation units in the department. Our view is that if we talk of investigation units, one implies that one has a network of informers and other auxiliary structures, such as intelligence units, which would support such investigations. Informers and intelligence units belong elsewhere in Government, and not in Home Affairs.

In conclusion, we want to commend the Department of Home Affairs for placing this Bill before Parliament, a Bill which, unlike the Aliens Control Act, which is outdated and unconstitutional, is humane and human rights orientated.

Before I sit down, I just want to say something with regard to those amendments that we as ANC actually withdrew. We want to assure this House that we withdrew those amendments not because we no longer believe in them, as other people have stated. We withdrew them because we felt that we would not be in time for this piece of legislation to be passed and assented to by the President. The hon the Minister said in the National Assembly that he agreed with this Bill, because if he were to withdraw it, we would not be able to meet the deadline. So, it is in that spirit that we also withdrew those amendments. It is not that we are throwing them away. We withdrew them temporarily, and, therefore, to harp on and lament the quota system is but playing to the gallery. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Chairperson and hon members, for the record of this House, let me reiterate something that I said in the National Assembly. Just to remind people, and just for the record of the NCOP, I am in this Government, because, first of all, the interim Constitution prescribed that any party that had more than 5% could have representation in Government. When Mr Mandela invited me, I agreed to do so. Some members of the IFP and some of the ANC did not like it. But both of us thought it was in the interests of the country that I should accept it, after the war that took place between the ANC and the IFP, in which more than 20 000 people were killed. Let me make this very clear to hon members, because I think some of them have forgotten that.

Now, this Government of National Unity then expired in 1999. The then Deputy President Mbeki, who was the president of the ANC at the time, called me to his office in that capacity. He then said that in the interests of reconciliation he thought we should continue to work together, even if it was no longer prescribed by the new Constitution. I agreed to do so. He said he was going to go even further and requested that, if he was elected, as it was taken for granted he would be, he would make me his Deputy President, also to consolidate reconciliation. I agreed in that spirit, not because I wanted to be Deputy President.

But, in fact, when there was a caveat or a condition that, if I accepted it, I must hand over the premiership of KwaZulu-Natal to the ANC, then, of course, I could not accept that. But still we agreed with President Mbeki that I should continue to work. So, I said: I agree Mzizi, give me any portfolio. President Mbeki refused and said to me that I was a senior Minister and he could not just give me any position. I was the leader of a minority party in the Government and, therefore, on the day of his inauguration, I was waiting for the function in the evening when a phone call came through to say that he was asking me to go back to Home Affairs. Now, I made remarks, not to the same extent that I am doing here, but I think I should do so, because to many of us it is quite admirable that there is Nepad today and it is led by our President, Mr Mbeki, and there is talk of an African Renaissance, and it is led by him.

Just recently there was a dialogue at Sun City concerning the DRC in which our President participated. Now, I must say, of course, people must not forget that here at home we have managed to do the wonderful things that our President is doing because I agreed, my party agreed, and the ANC felt strongly that we should work together.

Now, this legislation has been worked on for years. It followed the process of the Green Paper, the White Paper - it has been going on for a long time. And also, when the matter came before the Cabinet committee, our Deputy President Zuma was presiding, and on that day discussions took place for three hours. He said he had never seen, since he came from KwaZulu-Natal, where he had been Minister of Economic Affairs, any piece of legislation discussed in committee for three hours.

Then, after that, it came before Cabinet and we spent more than an hour in the Cabinet meeting. As if that was not sufficient, we also had a workshop of Cabinet for several hours, including the President and Ministers, discussing the Bill.

If these walls could speak! In this very Chamber, I had a conference to which all the stakeholders were invited to discuss this Bill. All the people - even Cosatu, in fact - helped me with some money to finance the workshop. I am just illustrating that even the trade unions as well as all the other stakeholders were greatly involved. We had discussions with Nedlac and with all stakeholders.

I think when people become so critical they should not forget that the process has been very long and very thorough. Yesterday, members saw that one of the newspapers mentioned that this was Buthelezi’s Bill. Yes, because I am the line function Minister, maybe it is Buthelezi’s Bill, but once it goes through the Cabinet and is brought to members here in Parliament, it is no longer Buthelezi’s Bill.

But maybe this is the beginning of the problem, that when it was seen as Buthelezi’s Bill, Buthelezi was seen in it, and it was like waving a red rag in front of a bull. For no rhyme or reason, molehills were made into mountains in order to oppose as much as possible.

I would like to say that I am talking about a very serious thing for our country. There has been peace in KwaZulu-Natal, which was a theatre of war between the IFP and the ANC in the last eight years. But, in fact, some political killings are taking place in KwaZulu-Natal even now. Even today there is an unnamed place where ANC and IFP leaders are engaged in discussions.

People must realise that simmering underneath will not manage to put out all the fires that destroyed so many of our people. It may be good to slap down a leader of a minority party in the sense that he is the leader of a minority party, but we may not have all the beautiful things that we have now for long. The investments that we want for our country, if we had not managed what we managed with Mr Mandela first of all and are now managing with President Mbeki, would not be hailed as an example to Africa and to the world.

I would like to thank the chairperson of the Select Committee, Ms Jacobus, for her remarks. I will not reiterate what the hon member said, but I did comment in my main presentation on the select committee’s suggestion, that I bring the necessary amendments so that this matter can be put right.

Judging by the remarks that were made by the hon member Mr Tolo, one would never think that this Bill came before Cabinet and that in the Cabinet, each department has experts and legal people. In fact, our Minister of Justice, Dr Maduna, has a doctorate in law. There were all those people who scrutinised this Bill, and in spite of that it took so long when it was in front of them. These people were there.

This Bill has made history. Maybe some members need to be reminded that the Bill was not certified by the state but by Adv Gauntlett. I saw some dragging of feet which was inexplicable to me. There was a reluctance even to certify this Bill, which I could not understand. That is why I had to ask an outside lawyer, Adv Gauntlett, to certify the Bill. All the people who have been pontificating about the Bill’s constitutionality and so on have amazed me, because everyone in this country knows who Jeremy Gauntlett is, and he is the one who certified the Bill.

As I said, even in the National Assembly there is a separation between Cabinet and legislature, and it is hon members’ prerogative and right to do whatever they think proper, as the legislature of this country, regarding whatever we, as Cabinet, bring down to the legislature. So I am not questioning that, but I am talking about the process. Why should someone like me, who decided to work with my party as a minority party in an ANC Government, be doubted? When the hon member Mr Tolo talks about an investigating unit, there will be suspicions. I must remind the hon member that the Director-General of Home Affairs is a former Director-General of the SA Secret Service. I must remind him that my former Deputy Minister of Home Affairs is Minister Sisulu, who was the chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. I must remind the hon Mr Tolo that my present Deputy Minister, Ms Mapisa-Nqakula, is a former chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence. I therefore really do not understand the point that is being made about investigations when we have all those intelligence heavyweights in my department. I would like to thank the hon member Ms Gouws as well for her contribution. All I would add is that the main effort of the Bill was to focus more resources on enforcement. The hon Mr Tolo made a point about restructuring merely to make it easier in the first place for people to get permits to break down the bureaucracy. But, above everything else, we are decentralising precisely in order to concentrate on enforcement, which is what we should be doing, considering the problems that we are now facing.

I would also like to thank the hon Mrs Nkuna and say that the objective of the original version of the Bill was emphatically to add to economic growth and the creation of job opportunities. To a certain extent in reverting to official discretion and widening discretion we have, in my humble view, lost ground. My aim was that the advisory board should rather be executive, because there are many entities like that in all departments which are autonomous and so on, but my colleagues in the Cabinet felt that it should merely be advisory, and I bowed to that and accepted it. By the time the Bill came here it was also my view that it should be advisory.

Regarding the concern that was expressed by the hon member Mrs Nkuna about the corporate permit, that never existed. It was merely a control process which simply relieved the department of unnecessary tasks.

I thank the hon member Mr Horne for what he said about me, and so on, and I think my preliminary remarks did answer what he said. In the same vein I would like to thank the hon Ambassador Durr for what he said about the fact that we may differ in politics from party to party. We may differ even within a party, as there are various viewpoints in any party, whether it is the ANC or the IFP, and there are various formations in a party. Having said all that, I do not think that there is anyone who should doubt my sincerity and integrity.

I would like to thank also the hon member Mr Sogoni, who said, rightly, that it was clear from the outset that this would be a difficult process. I remember when I introduced this Bill before the Cabinet. I said that immigration in any country was a controversial matter. I said that immigration would be controversial until the second coming of Christ. My colleagues laughed, but I meant that. If anyone doubts that, they must look at what happened in Holland now with the killing of Mr Fortuyn on this very issue. They must also look at what happened in Paris a few weeks back with Le Pen, which is also based on this issue of immigration. There is nothing exceptional about this.

In any country this is a very controversial thing. I can assure hon members that I had this Bill with me when I went to Washington and talked to officials there. I had this Bill with me when I talked to colleagues in Rotterdam, Holland. It was hailed everywhere. Mr Ruddock, the Minister of immigration in Australia and my colleagues and other Ministers in Geneva also hailed this Bill.

I am very grateful for the fact that in the interests of the country, therefore, we have all agreed, as members indicated in their presentations, that this Bill should be passed for now, in the same vein in which I proposed this in the National Assembly, in order to meet the deadline. I do not want to pick a fight with any particular person, but there were some contributions that, with due respect, were expressed concerning this Bill that surprised me, seeing what was published in the papers of yesterday and today. Even hon Minister Erwin personally tried to intervene, so that although a member was prepared to put on the backburner the issue about quotas, there was a member who, for the sake of debate, tried to defend it, which surprised me.

I have only just been assured by the chairperson of the select committee that I need to bring amendments so that this thing can be put right. It boggles the mind. I cannot understand it.

I may be the leader of the IFP, a minority party in the Government which works with the majority party, the ANC. I may be that. Having said so, I have operated under either President Mandela or President Mbeki, not so much as the leader of the IFP, but as a Minister of state. It is in that spirit that I have endured what I have endured so that this process could be finalised by hon members here today. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

The Council adjourned at 15:47. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

National Council of Provinces:

1. The Chairperson:

 (1)    Bill passed by National Council of Provinces on 23 May 2002:  To
     be submitted to President of the Republic for assent:


     (i)     Immigration Bill [B 79B - 2001] (National  Assembly  -  sec
          75).


 (2)    Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces:


     Bill passed by National Assembly on 23  May  2002  and  transmitted
     for concurrence:


     (i)     KwaZulu Cane Growers' Association Act Repeal Bill [B 48B  -
          2001] (National Assembly - sec 75).


     The Bill has been referred to the  Select  Committee  on  Land  and
     Environmental Affairs of the National Council of Provinces.

TABLINGS:

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:

Papers:

1. The Minister of Defence:

 The Strategic Plan for the Department of Defence for 2002-2005 [RP  34-
 2002].