National Assembly - 22 October 2008
WEDNESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2008
____
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:05.
The Speaker 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
Dr C P MULDER (FF Plus): Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House –
(1) notes that history has proven that success on the sports field promotes co-operation between groups and works against polarisation;
(2) notes that this week it is precisely a year ago since the Springboks were crowned the world champions in France; (3) furthermore notes that the Springbok team is one of the few sports teams in South Africa who are world champions in their particular field of sports;
(4) debates the abuse of sports symbols like that of the Springboks, to introduce more polarisation and friction in South Africa at the scene, from the irresponsible statements made by the hon Mr Komphela; and
(5) honours the former President Mandela, who used sports and the Springboks to promote co-operation and harmony between groups, especially when he proudly wore the Springbok jersey with the 1995 World Championships.
Sir, I have a photo here. When the hon Komphela looked at this photograph of Mr Mandela, he realised that that was a jersey on which he wanted to puke. I thank you.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) debates the problems surrounding South Africa’s current electoral system of list-based proportional representation; and (2) notes the recommendations made by the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission and the merits of initiating a process of electoral reform in South Africa.
Mr T D LEE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House debates the proposed replacement of the Springbok emblem.
I thank you.
CONGRATULATIONS TO MAYOR OF CAPE TOWN
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House –
1) notes that Cape Town Mayor and the leader of the DA, Helen Zille,
was awarded...
[Interjections.]
The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the motion that Mr Davidson wants to read has been circulated amongst parties …
The SPEAKER: Has it been circulated?
The ACTING CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, yes, it has been circulated. As the ANC, we have indicated to the DA that we would appreciate time to engage them further on the exact wording of that motion. We have made that very clear to them. So, we ask that the motion should stand back until there has been sufficient time for further discussions. I thank you.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, can I address you on that? This motion was actually handed in yesterday before twelve o’clock. The member on my opposite actually had plenty of time to look at the wording, deliberate over it and come to a conclusion.
He has yet to give me appropriate reasons why this motion should not be read in this House. In fact, unless there’s churlishness on that side of the House, simply because the member that we are speaking about, who happens to be the mayor, is the Leader of the DA. I can think of no other reason.
The SPEAKER: Who is now addressing the House?
Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, may I address you on this point of order? I just need clarity. Are we dealing with a motion of … [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Which point of order are you talking about?
Dr C P MULDER: This specific item. Are we dealing with the notice of a motion or a motion without notice?
The SPEAKER: We are dealing with motions without notice.
Dr C P MULDER: It is motions without notice. I thank you.
The SPEAKER: There is an objection from the ANC. We have always relied on the Whips coming together to find each other and we would then allow a motion without notice. [Interjections.] I am still addressing the House, Mr Ellis. Mr Ellis, I am still addressing the House.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I thought maybe you had finished. People from the other side are treating you very badly, Madam Speaker, and I thought that you were finished.
The SPEAKER: I think you all have the benefit of knowing what this motion is all about, because you came together and discussed it. Irrespective of how you feel at the moment, will you please allow me to say that whenever there has been an objection in the past, especially where a party is asking for time, we have always ruled that, because there was an objection, we would not allow that motion. That is what is standing. Let me say that you should find yourself with the ANC. I am sure you would. When you come back, the motion would be entertained. That is the practice of the Whips and we respect that.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Chair, I am sorry, and I respect your ruling. I think there has to be a rational basis upon which the decision is taken.
The SPEAKER: There has to be what?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: There has to be a rational basis upon which a decision is taken. When a motion without notice is forwarded, of just congratulating somebody who has become the World Mayor, I think there has to be a reason why members on the opposite side raise an objection and that’s the only point I am making.
The SPEAKER: Mr Davidson, I am saying that I don’t have the benefit of knowing what is contained in that motion. We have always respected the Chief Whips’ Forum to agree on a motion and bring it in. We have also sneaked in the motion by trying to address my point of order. I think that it was out of order. I am asking you to find yourself with the ANC Chief Whip and come back to the House. If you have something that you think everybody else would agree to, I am sure you would find yourself with the ANC. I have closed this matter.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I really want to raise just one issue if I may, please.
The SPEAKER: On what?
Mr M J ELLIS: The fact that a very dangerous precedent is being set. As the hon Chief Whip of the DA has indicated, this motion was handed to the ANC yesterday. Twenty-four hours later, we are still battling to make sure that this motion is allowed in the House. I am saying to you, Madam Speaker, that unless a ruling is made, we could have a stalling process in this Parliament whereby a motion could be allowed to stand over day after day, because one party would say that it hasn’t had a chance to discuss it yet. I am urging you to say: Yes … [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: I have made my ruling on this matter. This matter is closed. Mr Nel and Mr Ellis, take your seats. You are delaying the business of this House unnecessarily. You are going to go back and have your own meeting, and thereafter you will come back. You have other ways of dealing with a motion without notice. I know that you really enjoy having these kinds of discussions with me. So, I am asking you please to respect what I am saying now. Let us move on. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Report)
Order disposed of without debate.
Report adopted.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades and friends …
… en ook welkom aan die kleinkinders van agb lid, Delport, en hul maatjies in die galery. Welkom hier. [Also, welcome to the grandchildren of hon member Delport and their friends in the gallery. Welcome here.]
There are two Bills which are to be debated today - the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill and the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill. While both these Bills might not be regarded as sensational from a media point of view and might even be considered to be of a technical and mundane nature, their impact is more than meets the eye.
Both these Bills under discussion now are intended to address practical issues which will have an enormous impact on a diverse range of processes, procedures and mechanisms within the administration of justice. The approval of these two Bills by Parliament will have a very positive effect on streamlining the application of existing Acts administered by the department and creating new processes and procedures which, I believe, will be hugely beneficial to our people and for the administration of justice. They will save the taxpayer money; create certainty where there is uncertainty; make aspects of the Criminal Justice System more efficient and effective; address the legislative and other wrongdoings of the previous constitutional dispensation, with specific reference … [Interjections.]
… jy praat al so vroeg! Sy skree in my ore, man. Ek kan nie … Sy’t so ’n skril stemmetjie. [… you are talking this early! She’s making a noise. I can’t … she has such a high-pitched voice.]
… to the apartheid crimes that will be expunged automatically; and will give effect to constitutional imperatives.
Let me now turn to the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill. This Bill deals with two issues: firstly, to regulate, for the first time, the postponement of certain criminal proceedings by way of audiovisual links; and secondly, to provide for the expungement of certain criminal records. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the audiovisual postponement of criminal proceedings. Four new provisions have been proposed for insertion in the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977, namely new sections 159(a) to (d) have been included to give effect to this.
Because these new provisions are straightforward, and do not require an elaboration, I will not go into any further detail on what they provide for. They are largely based on the legislative recommendations of the South African Law Reform Commission’s report regarding the use of electronic equipment in court proceedings, with a few meaningful additions proposed by the portfolio committee. Allow me to elaborate in this regard.
Firstly, I refer to the insertion proposed by the committee in the new section 159(4), in terms of which a presiding officer is required to inquire into the physical and mental wellbeing of the person appearing before him or her by means of an audiovisual link. The presiding officer sees the accused person before the court and makes an almost subconscious assessment as to his or her wellbeing. Because the presiding officer will not be in the actual presence of the accused in terms of these provisions, it becomes necessary to regulate this properly to ensure that there is an obligation to look into the wellbeing of an accused person. Therefore, the proposed section is welcome. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon member, please continue.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: I also welcome the changes to the introduced Bill which regulate situations in which there are glitches in technology. Provisions of this nature are necessary because technology does sometimes let us down. You may ask the hon Ellis. The new section 159(c), as proposed by the portfolio committee, spells out what should happen in the case of an interruption of an audiovisual link when the audiovisual facility malfunctions.
Before I proceed I want to point out that the audiovisual provisions also give effect to a crucial component of the review of the Criminal Justice System, which government has embarked upon, and of which the implementation is underway. The review is aimed at working towards the establishment of a new, modernised, efficient and transformed Criminal Justice System. This will be underpinned and driven by a package of seven fundamental and far- reaching, transformative changes to the present Criminal Justice System. These proposed changes have already been adopted by Cabinet in November 2007 and now require full implementation in an integrated and holistic manner.
The sixth pillar of the seven-point plan deals with modernisation projects. This particular plan deals with projects which aim to modernise, in an integrated and holistic manner, all aspects of the systems and equipment of the Criminal Justice System, including the fast-tracking of the implementation of present projects and modernisation. A number of solutions and modernisation projects have been developed and are being implemented. One of these projects deals with the video postponement of cases by the provision of high quality multiprotocol communication links between courtrooms and the correctional facilities.
The proposed video postponement of cases will also be hugely cost effective, avoiding transporting prisoners over long distances each day when their cases will not proceed in court on that day, with the concomitant advantage that high risk prisoners will have less opportunity to escape during transportation and processing at courts. The Memorandum on the Objects of this Bill deals in some detail with the savings, benefits … [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, may we request the Whips to assist us? There are just too many meetings.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: … and other implementation issues of this clause. I am consequently not going to say anything further in this regard.
I will now focus on clauses 2 and 3 which deal with the expungement of criminal records. These provisions have their origins in section 271(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977, as well as in the prerogative of the President to pardon offenders in terms of section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of 1996.
Section 271(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a person’s conviction for certain less serious offences falls away as a previous conviction after a period of 10 years has lapsed since that conviction, if the person has not, during that period, been convicted of a further offence and received a sentence exceeding 6 months imprisonment without the option of a fine. The category of persons qualifying for this benefit is based on the sentences they received, which are of a minor nature.
However, section 271(a) really only comes to the assistance of accused persons in as far as previous convictions are concerned. It does not take the matter to its logical conclusion by providing a mechanism in terms of which an accused person can have his or her slate wiped clean. By this I mean that there is no mechanism for such a person to have his or her criminal record deleted at the Criminal Record Centre of the SA Police Service.
The result of this gap is that there is an ever-increasing number of persons who approach the President for a presidential pardon which, if granted, leads to the expungement of their criminal record. The numbers have grown to hundreds, if not thousands, each year. I have no doubt that presidential pardons should not be granted routinely. They should be the exception and not the rule.
However, over the last few years, a practice has developed that the President is approached for presidential pardon and expungement of the criminal records of persons who have committed minor offences and where 10 years or so have lapsed since the commission of the offence without any other serious crime being committed. We have processed hundreds, even thousands, of such requests to the President on an annual basis.
In order to address this gap, the Bill proposes the creation of an application procedure in terms of which persons who have committed minor offences in the past, which did not result in their incarceration and where at least 10 years have lapsed without committing a further crime leading to incarceration, can then have their past misdemeanours removed administratively.
This is what the Bill seeks to do, using section 271(a) as a basis to describe what qualifies for automatic expungement, with a few adaptations, and providing a new section 271(b) which creates an application procedure leading to expungement of minor offences if all criteria are met. The impact will be positive for persons who require clean police clearance certificates for work and travel purposes. Most of the members here might need that. So you should listen carefully.
The intention is certainly not to interfere with sentences imposed by the courts. The mechanism provided in the Bill will only impact on sentences imposed by the courts which have been fully complied with and where the person did not serve any term of imprisonment. The rest is self- explanatory, and I am not going to go into detail.
However, I do want to make specific reference to the proposed new section 271(c). I trust that the hon member Mr Selfe who introduced a Private Member’s Bill, dealing with the same subject matter, will be satisfied with this aspect of the Bill, although the mechanisms proposed are not the same as he suggested. But I think the outcomes are the same.
Section 271(c) provides for the automatic expungement of criminal records of persons who were convicted of certain specified offences that would never be considered offences under our new constitutional dispensation. There were hundreds of thousands of unfortunate persons who were stigmatised and subjected to criminal sanctions under these so-called “apartheid offences”; for instance, the notorious Group Areas Act, the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act - to mention a few. A provision of such a nature is long overdue and I trust that the Criminal Record Centre is going to do all in its power to speed up the undeserved trauma and humiliation that such persons had to suffer in this regard.
If automatic expungement does not take place or where expungement of an apartheid crime not specifically listed is applied for, we have provided for an application procedure to allow for expungement where all criteria have been met. I am aware that there have been calls for all expungements envisaged in this legislation to be done automatically, but, at the moment, the Criminal Record Centre is not able to implement such a request.
I have taken note of the report of the portfolio committee which indicates that this Bill should be seen as the first step in a bigger process. The committee has suggested that further research and consultation should be undertaken relating to the system of keeping criminal records and the procedures to be followed when they are expunged. I shall request the department or perhaps the SA Law Reform Commission to undertake this task immediately.
The department agrees with these proposals because the understandably narrow approach taken creates scope for some minor crimes not being covered by the Bill, allowing the present practice where such minor offences are referred to the President for pardon and expungement to continue. This is undesirable.
I want to thank the portfolio committee and members of the department. I would also like to recommend to this House that it should unconditionally support this Bill. I thank you. [Time expired.]
Mr J H JEFFERY: Madam Speaker, as the Deputy Minister has said, the Bill has two main provisions. Firstly, it is providing for video links between the courts and the prisons. My colleague, the hon Sibanyoni, would deal with this. Secondly, it is providing for the expungement of criminal records, and this is divided into two parts: general expungement and the expungement of offences created by the apartheid regime, such as pass law offences, Immorality Act convictions and so on - crimes that no longer exist under our Constitution. The hon Sibanyoni would also deal with this aspect.
What I’m going to deal with are the provisions relating to the general expungement of criminal records. Currently, when you get convicted, you will keep that sentence for life. So if you have a conviction, Mr Ellis, of driving under the influence of alcohol or shoplifting, you would have it forever. The only way you can get rid of a criminal record is if the President gives you a pardon. Many applications are made to the President in this regard, particularly from people who want to travel to other countries that sometimes won’t let you in if you have a previous conviction. The Bill provides for the expungement of criminal records for minor offences.
It’s obvious that punishment for a crime doesn’t necessarily end with the completion of a sentence. If you reoffend and commit another crime, the court that sentences you for the second crime needs to know that you are not a first offender and needs to take that into account in deciding what sentence to impose on you.
If you employ someone, you need to know if they ever committed a crime, particularly a serious one. And the record does act as a deterrent, in that if you commit a crime you know that one of the consequences is that you would have a criminal record.
On the other hand, the rehabilitation of criminals is important. We do need to give people a second chance because having a criminal record affects their ability to find employment. For example, it is ridiculous, Mr Ellis, that if you drove under the influence of liquor 20 years ago that that crime should remain with you forever. The key issue though … [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, please refrain from using us in the House as your examples, so that there is very little hackling.
Mr J H JEFFERY: Madam Speaker, it’s not in my speech, but it was just such a good example.
Where do you draw the line? The Bill as introduced provides for a nondiscretionary procedure. If you were sentenced in a particular way, you write to the Director-General of Justice and your record would get cleaned, if 10 years have lapsed.
The committee felt that this is a complex issue. Different offences should possibly count differently for different things. For example, if you were found guilty of drunken driving, it shouldn’t impact on you if you went to work in a bank. [Interjections.] But it should be taken into account if you are going to seek employment as a truck driver. Similarly, if you steal some money, it shouldn’t impact on you if you want to work as a truck driver, but it is important if you are going to work in a bank.
The committee has the report that was just adopted. We feel that more work should be done in considering this matter. Other countries such as America and Australia have different types of record keeping. An issue, as well, is whether or not the Minister should have the discretion to expunge your record, depending on your own circumstances rather than on the nondiscretionary procedure that is there at the moment.
In the report that the House adopted, we called on the Minister to conduct further research into the different systems that are used in keeping and expunging criminal records. This research should draw on, amongst others, international best practice and allow for broader consultation with the relevant stakeholders and the public on this issue and then to report back to Parliament within 24 months. What we have done then was to adopt a more minimalist approach, because there is a real need that has to be addressed.
The Bill originally allowed for the expungement of very minor offences after 5 years and slightly more serious ones after 10 years. We have provided for expungement after 10 years only.
We’ve also said that you should only qualify for an expungement if you’ve not been given a prison sentence without the option of a fine in an intervening 10 years. We reduced the amount that you could be convicted of from R50 000 to R20 000 as we felt that R50 000 was worth a lot more 10 years ago. We have also excluded sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine. The Bill did allow for sentence of imprisonment for up to six months.
The Bill provided that the Minister could allow an expungement if less than 10 years had lapsed in exceptional circumstances, but the exceptional circumstances were not spelt out. So we deleted that. We are not opposed to Ministerial discretion, but the exceptional circumstances need to be spelt out, otherwise every person who is convicted of a minor offence would probably try and argue exceptional circumstances before 10 years have lapsed.
Lastly, we excluded people who were convicted of sexual offences and who are registered in the National Register of Sexual Offenders or in the National Child Protection Register. We also excluded people who are disqualified from possessing a firearm because of a criminal conviction.
So, in short, we feel this Bill would go a long way in relieving the plight of minor offenders who want to start afresh. However, in the light of the need to balance the rights of minor offenders and those of the public who need to be protected against crime, more work needs to go into considering how to widen it.
I would like to thank the members of the Justice Committee for their time during the consideration of the Bill. With this Bill all parties were able to set aside petty party differences in order to produce the best product. I would also like to thank members of the department who assisted us with the Bill for the time and effort spent on the matter. Thank you. [Applause.]
Dr J T DELPORT: Chairperson, the Bill is not controversial. My colleague who dealt with the Bill just now has really elucidated all the finer details. What I want to do is to address my young guests and tell them what we are doing in this Parliament so that, as a young generation, they will understand.
As iemand ’n misdaad gepleeg het en die hof bevind hom skuldig, dan is daar drie gevolge. Die eerste is ’n direkte formele gevolg. Wat beteken dit? Hy gaan tronk toe of hy moet ’n boete betaal.
Maar daar is ook ’n indirekte formele gevolg. ’n Mens kry ’n rekord. Dit beteken, as ’n mens aansoek doen om ’n visum om oorsee te gaan kan dit teen jou tel. As jy aansoek doen om ’n werk kan dit teen jou tel.
Dan is daar informele gevolge, en wat is dit? Dit beïnvloed ’n mens se status in die gemeenskap as jy in ‘n hof skuldig bevind word. Eintlik beteken dit die agting wat mense vir jou het, word beïnvloed, want jy is skuldig bevind dat jy iets verkeerd gedoen het.
Nou, ons maak vandag ’n wet wat sê as daar 10 jaar verloop het vandat ’n mens skuldig bevind is aan ’n kleiner oortreding waarvoor jy nie tronk toe gestuur is nie, maar waarvoor jy ’n boete betaal het of die hof jou gewaarsku het, dan gaan dit nie meer teen jou tel nie. Ons gaan ’n streep deur daardie rekord van jou trek, want onthou, daardie rekord sê ook as jy ooit weer ’n misdaad pleeg, gaan die landdros of die regter kyk en sê “O, jy het vorige veroordelings gehad”, en dan gaan jy swaarder gestraf word.
Nou sê ons, ná 10 jaar trek ons daar ’n streep deur. Dit is omdat ons regsteisel, ons wette, ook hierdie gevoel – en julle moet leer wat dit beteken – van ubuntu het. Dit beteken dat ons almal saam na mekaar moet omsien sodat ons ook volgens die Bybel vergewensgesind sal wees as iemand wat verkeerd gedoen het nou 10 jaar lank die mooi, regte paadjie geloop het. Dit leer ook my jong gaste vandag dat daar ook in die Parlement, in die hoogste gesag in hierdie land, menslikheid is wat ons teenoor mekaar moet betoon. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[If somebody has committed a crime and he is convicted in court, then there are three consequences. The first is a direct formal consequence. What does it mean? He either goes to prison or he must pay a fine.
But there is also an indirect formal consequence. One gets a record. This means that when one applies for a visa to travel abroad, it can count against you. When you apply for a job it may count against you.
Then there are informal consequences, and what are they? It affects a person’s status in the community when you are convicted in court. It actually means that the regard that people have for you is affected, because you were convicted of doing something wrong.
Now, today we are making a law that says when 10 years have lapsed since you had been convicted of a minor offence for which you had not been sent to prison, but for which you received a fine or a warning in court, then it will no longer count against you. We are going to expunge it from your record, because remember, that record also says that if you ever commit a crime again, the magistrate or the judge will look at it and say “Oh, you have had previous convictions”, and then you will be punished more severely.
Now we are saying that after 10 years we will expunge it. This is because our justice system, our laws, also have this sense – and you must learn what it means – of ubuntu. It means that all of us must be collectively responsible for one another so that we will also, according to the Bible, be forgiving when someone who has done wrong has now been walking the straight and narrow path for 10 years.
It also teaches my young guests here today that even in Parliament, the highest authority in this country, we must show humanity to one another.]
On the second main aspect of this Bill, I want to assure the hon Deputy Minister that we will speak to Mr James Selfe, of our party, who initiated this whole idea of expunging the records of people who, considering what they had done then, would not have committed any crime now.
Ek wil dus ook lof bring aan my kollega mnr Selfe wat in dié verband die voortou geneem het. Die DA steun hierdie wetsontwerp. [I therefore also want to commend my colleague Mr Selfe, who took the lead in this regard. The DA supports this Bill.]
Mnr J H VAN DER MERWE: Agb Voorsitter, dr Delport was voorheen ’n professor in die regte en hy het nou op ’n baie eenvoudige en mooi manier vir ons verduidelik waaroor dit gaan. Hy het dit eintlik bedoel vir die Graad Eentjies wat daar voor sit, en ek is dus seker dat mnr Ellis dit ook nou sal verstaan! [Gelag.]
Dis nie vir my nodig om te herhaal … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Hon Chairman, Dr Delport used to be a professor in law and he has just explained what it is all about in a very simple and nice manner. He actually directed it at the Grade Ones sitting there in front, and I am therefore sure that Mr Ellis will also understand it now. [Laughter.]
It is not necessary for me to repeat …]
Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Chairman …
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon Ellis, is that a point of order?
Mr M J ELLIS: I just want to assure Mr Van der Merwe that I have understood that perfectly all along but I want to thank him for his deep concern. Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Die IVP wil nie die argumente wat reeds geopper is, herhaal nie, behalwe om te sê ons steun hierdie wetgewing, want dis ’n goeie wetsontwerp. [The IFP does not want to repeat the arguments that have been raised, except to say that we support this legislation, because it is a good Bill.]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, procedural law advocates the rules to be followed in the instance of criminal offences and that clearly ensures that the justice system functions well and avoids the abuse of it.
It is, however, crucial that this procedure also be symbolic and carries a sense of value that purports to the national Constitution. The Constitution is oriented to the protection and liberation of human rights and that includes the rights of offenders.
In view of the amending Bill and the clause on the audiovisual link to appear in court for postponement, the MF is supportive of this as it clearly would lighten the burden on the court and the correctional facilities. This shall also certainly stamp out the escape of prisoners that often takes place during transportation to courts.
Our only concern, however, is a guarantee that the system will be operated in a manner that shall not compromise the offenders in terms of justice and his or her rights. Chairperson, the MF supports the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill. I thank you.
Nmz J B SIBANYONI: Ngithokoze Sihlalo. Ngilotjhisa woke amalunga ahlonophekileko wePalamende, aboNgqongqotjhe namaSekela wabo. UmThethomlingwa lo ukhibelela umThethokambiso wokuTjhutjhiswa kwemiLandu yobeLelesi womnyaka we-1997, ukuqalana namaphuzu alandelako: Okokuthoma, ukutshwiliswa kwemilandu ethileko yabamangalelwa abasalindele ukugwetjwa ngabomabonwakude nanyana ngokulalela.
Okwesibili, ukulawula kokusulwa kwamarikhodi wokugwetjwa lokha naselekudlule isikhathi esibekiweko.
Kokugcina okungokwesithathu, ukusulwa kwamarikhodi wabanye abamangalelwa abagwetjiweko lokha nasele bakhambisene neendingo zomthetho ezithileko begodu nasele kudlule isikhathi esibekiweko nokunikela iindingo ezikhambisana nalokhu. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraphs follows.)
[Mr J B SIBANYONI: Thank you, Chairperson. I greet all the hon Members of Parliament, Ministers and their Deputies. This Bill seeks to amend the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill of 1997 concentrating on several points. Firstly, it covers the postponements of certain cases of awaiting-trial prisoners who are being prosecuted by the media. Secondly, it also covers control over the expunging of records of certain convictions when a specified time has expired.
Lastly, it deals with the expunging of the records of certain offenders who were prosecuted. When these offenders have followed legal procedures and meet the requirements of the law, and when a specified time has lapsed, they will qualify to have their records expunged.]
Chairperson, I’m going to talk about video postponements, as well as expunging the records of certain convictions and also those relating to the old legislation. Computers and video conferencing equipment can malfunction and thus appropriate technical support would be required.
It was further noted that video systems are expensive to acquire, install and update; and as such initial installation costs would have to be balanced against long–term potential savings. There is a concern that the enactment of legislation to provide for the hearing of a bail application and the postponement of cases by way of an audiovisual link may have an impact on some fundamental rights, specifically the right of the accused to be present in court and the right to a public trial.
However, proposed legislation will not exclude the accused from the aforementioned proceedings. The accused is afforded the same rights as an accused on trial. The only difference is that the accused is not physically present at the place where the presiding officer is. The infringement, if any, is therefore minimal.
Concerning expungement of records of certain convictions, there are two main objections to the expungement of these records. Firstly, there is the moral objection and such legislation perpetrates a statutory lie by trying to rewrite history …
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon members, please you are disturbing the House now. And I have a barometer in the form of an 82-year- old member here. Each time he stretches his head I know that he cannot hear. Please be respectful.
Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order. Could I suggest that if the speaker is disturbed in the House, we should be allowed to carry on with our own discussions?
Mr J B SIBANYONI: Chairperson, I was on the expungement of records of certain convictions. There are two main objections to the expungement of records. Firstly, the moral objection; such legislation perpetrates a statutory lie by trying to rewrite history and pretending that an offence never took place.
Secondly, public safety requires monitoring of those with criminal records, particularly in relation to working with children, vulnerable adults, and employment involving the administration of justice, national security, and financial services. In respect of these posts, an employer is entitled to know about all previous convictions - both spent and unspent - and to consider them in assessing an individual’s suitability for the work.
The achievement of a careful balance that safeguards the public against criminals, while recognising that the consequences of possessing a criminal record can cause undue hardship, is very difficult. During the discussions or deliberations it was felt that the complexity of the matter warrants further research and consultation with stakeholders.
Now, concerning the expungement of records in terms of the old legislation, I would like to mention that prior to the commencement of the new Constitution, amnesty and indemnity laws were enacted and utilised to extinguish criminal liability and/or expand criminal convictions and criminal records of persons who committed offences with a political objectives. The life span of these pieces of legislation has expired. Currently, the only way a person can expunge his or her record is in terms of the Constitution.
There is also the special dispensation that was announced by the former President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr Thabo Mbeki, in terms of which persons convicted for offences with a political motive are recommended for pardon by the reference group. The effect, thereof, is to expunge the criminal records of inmates and those who have served their sentences. And I must say that we are – as the reference group – busy with that process together with the other parties that are represented here in Parliament.
During the deliberations we also noted that there is an urgent need for a system of expungement of criminal records for minor crimes after some years have lapsed. All this has to be done bearing in mind that the fight against crime should be intensified. This Bill will in no way undermine the fight against crime.
I must point out that we as the ruling party are concerned about the escalating crime and we are suggesting that the fight against crime must be intensified. The provision provides for the automatic expungement of a criminal record in respect of certain listed offences where a person was convicted of the contravention of any old order legislation aimed at promoting the policy of apartheid. Hon Jeffery has indicated the types of offences in which instances the records will be expunged, and these are really minor offences.
Finally, I would like to say that the ANC supports this Bill. Thank you.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time. JUDICIAL MATTERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Report)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades and friends, ladies and gentlemen …
Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, on a point of order: The hon Deputy Minister referred to you as Madam Speaker, and I don’t see that in you. [Laughter.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon Deputy Minister, I didn’t undergo any changes.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: “Madam Speaker” in the broader sense of the word.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): There is nothing of that nature. Just say “House Chairperson”, that’s all.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Hon House Chairperson, I apologise.
The provisions in this Bill are diverse in nature. They amend 15 different Acts of Parliament, which affect different aspects of the administration of justice. Almost without exception, they address certain problem areas which have arisen in practice to give effect to constitutional imperatives. I do not intend dealing with all the amendments. The Memorandum on the Objects of the Bill is comprehensive, going into quite some details on every clause. I would like to highlight a few of the provisions which are particularly noteworthy.
There are a number of the provisions which are necessary to give effect to judgments of the Constitutional Court. Constitutional Court judgments have made the amendments to clauses 1, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 21 necessary. Clause 1 amends the General Laws Amendment Act of 1935, which deals with concealment of births. The main object of this clause is to remove the reverse onus in the clause.
We have done so particularly on the urging of the Women Legal Centre, and I hope that we have dealt with it sufficiently. I do note in the report of the committee that there are a few aspects which we will still further pursue in this regard.
As a further precaution, we’ve also provided that the Director of Public Prosecutions must authorise any prosecutions in this regard. This is to stop the mischief of women being prosecuted indiscriminately and thereafter the charges being withdrawn. Clauses 13 to 16, arising out of a Constitutional Court judgment in the case of S vs Shinga, ensure that appeals from the Lower Courts to the High Courts and from the High Courts to the Supreme Court of Appeal are held in an open court so that the full record of proceedings of the trial is made available to judges in petition proceedings, where leave to appeal has been refused by the trial court, and that at least two judges consider every petition.
Clause 21 gives effect to another Constitutional Court judgment, this time in respect of the Matrimonial Property Act of 1984. The court was of the view that damages for patrimonial loss awarded in such instances must not fall into the joint estate, but must become the separate property of the injured spouse. This clause now also rectifies this matter.
I will now deal with the provisions of the Bill dealing with admission of guilt fines. They are to be found in clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 17 and 39. The amendments in clause 7, that is the amendments of section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act, form the crux of these amendments. The rest are really consequential in nature.
The effect of the existing provisions is that different admission of guilt fines exist in different parts of the country for different offences. There are two worrying factors about this legislative framework. Firstly, section 9 of the Constitution, dealing with the right to equality, guarantees everyone the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. Living in one part of the country might result in a person receiving a heftier fine for a particular offence than a person living in another part of the country. This cannot be right.
The second problem relates to the fact that there is no uniformity in respect of the offences and the amounts which can be paid as admission of guilt fines across the board, and therefore many persons are arrested and brought to court. This clogs up the court rolls with petty offences and results in a person spending time in detention unnecessarily, often over weekends.
The proposed amendments are intended to promote uniformity, thereby ensuring that the objectives of admission of guilt fines are used to their full potential, to unburden our Criminal Justice System of minor offences.
Clause 7 proposes that the Minister must determine the offences which qualify for the admission of guilt fines. The Minister must also determine the amounts which must be paid in respect of these offences, and in doing so has to consult with the Chief Justice, the National Director of Public Prosecutions, NDPP, and the Minister of Safety and Security. I am positive that such a uniform regime for admission of guilt fines will pay dividends in the long run. This amendment has been strongly promoted and supported by the review of the Criminal Justice System. In similar vein, I am of the view that the amendments to section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act will be beneficial to the Criminal Justice System.
Clause 9 amends the bail provisions. In terms of these bail provisions and the Constitution, the accused person must be released on bail if the interest of justice … [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam, sorry, Mr Chairperson, I nearly called you Madam Speaker, I do not know why.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): You nearly said it.
Mr M J ELLIS: It has got nothing to do with the hon Deputy Minister’s very boring speech, sir, but I just wondered whether it could be noted that the hon Anchen Dreyer, from the DA, is now formally handing over a massive pile of papers to the Minister of Labour, which I sincerely hope will be recorded in Hansard as a momentous occasion in this Parliament’s history.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Thank you. And she really suits well that side.
Prof B TUROK: Chairperson, I have the impression that the hon Ellis has eaten too well at lunch time. Could he confess?
Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, I do confess. I ate remarkably well. Thank you very much.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): But it is not a point of order.
The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Chairperson, because he has already mentioned this and you allowed it, I want to read what is written here. This comes from 1993, even before the ANC became government.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Thank you very much, hon Minister. You may continue, hon Deputy Minister. Hon members, order please!
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I want to agree with the hon Turok. The hon Ellis is particularly annoying today.
Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, may I just record that the hon Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development is even more irritating?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Order, hon members! Hon Ellis, please be in order. Hon Deputy Minister, you don’t have to respond to that.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: I will take him to lunch some time.
Clause 9 therefore proposes that if a court decides that the interests of justice permit the release of an accused on bail, the court must hold a separate enquiry to determine the ability of the accused to pay the sum of money that the court intends setting as a condition for release or to consider alternative conditions for release on bail. This, I am sure, will go a long way in alleviating the overcrowding in prisons. There are at the moment 11 000 awaiting-trial prisoners who should not be there. Their continued detention in prison is, in most cases, as a result of their inability to pay the bail money which the court has set for them.
Presently, South African officials doing diplomatic duty abroad who commit offences cannot be prosecuted due to diplomatic immunity principles. Clause 11 inserts a new section in the Criminal Procedure Act which confers jurisdiction on South African courts in certain circumstances to try offences committed abroad by these officials.
The Judge’s Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act requires a judge who is discharged from active service and is not yet 75 years old to perform service for at least three months in every year when required to do so. Such a judge may volunteer to perform for more than three months if requested. Judges older than 75 years may also volunteer for such service.
Voluntary service may only be performed after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission at the request of the head of the relevant court and with the approval of the Minister. The question may be asked, why we need provisions like these. Mr Ellis, these provisions seek to ensure that judges who have been discharged from active service do not routinely continue an active service, blocking the entry of new members to the bench, often to the detriment of aspirant young judges who will facilitate the transformation of the judiciary.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Hon members, judging by the level of the noise, it seems some of you have eaten whatever hon Ellis has eaten. There are young children on the gallery; I do not know what they must think of us.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: They probably say we are as noisy as they are.
This clause intends to create a procedure where the services of retired judges can be obtained quickly, for purposes of dealing with backlogs and additional workloads at courts where temporary judicial posts have been created for this purpose.
Because the Judicial Service Commission only sits twice a year, this requirement to seek approval frustrates efforts to tackle backlogs in the court. The Act is being amended so that only the approval of the Minister, at the request of the head of the court, is required when it is necessary to recall a judge who has been discharged from active service to come and assist for a short while in a temporary post. The amendment will only apply in respect of temporary posts and not in the case of permanent judicial posts.
Lastly, I would like to thank the chairperson, who delegates very effectively, and other members of the portfolio committee, who, despite the heavy workload, have ensured that they processed this Bill before the term of the third democratic Parliament ends. Congratulations to all of you - from all parties.
May I also thank members of my department for their assistance in processing the Bill, especially Advocates Lawrence Bassett and Theresa Raath. On behalf of government and the governing party, the ANC, I unconditionally support the passing of this Bill and recommend it to the House, urging for the support of all parties. Thank you.
Ms C B JOHNSON: Chairperson, the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill is very technical in nature, but I’m going to try my best not to make the House sleep. There were 40 clauses, which amend more than 15 different pieces of legislation. As I said, the amendments are mostly technical in nature and they are primarily aimed at addressing certain problems that have arisen in practice, but also to give effect to certain Constitutional Court judgments.
Many of the amendments are self-explanatory, but others are of a more substantial nature and should require the attention of the House. Four of the main aspects that I will deal with are: the concealment of birth; admission of guilt fines; the National Register for Sex Offenders; and the rules in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, and the rules in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act.
With regard to the concealment of birth, on our statute books, at the moment, there is a clause that criminalises the act of disposing of the body of a newly-born child, irrespective of whether the child has died before, during or after birth. The way it works is that if a person disposes of the body of a newly-born child, irrespective of whether the child was dead or alive at the time of birth, the person will have been assumed to have had the intention of concealing the birth. So it is not a normal situation where the onus is on the state to prove that the person actually had the intention, but the onus of proof is on that person to show that they did not have the intention.
The Women’s Legal Centre raised various concerns in respect of this clause, in particular, the constitutional validity as it could be seen as an infringement of section 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. So for that reason, the committee has deleted the reverse onus and believes that this will bring the section in line with constitutional jurisprudence.
Then the Women’s Legal Centre has also argued that the original section was open to abuse, that many women were prosecuted in terms of the section and that the section was abused. The committee therefore inserted a requirement that the decision whether or not to charge women with this particular offence can only be made by a Director of Public Prosecutions. In other words, it should be a person at a very senior level who should safeguard it against abuse.
The committee received a number of submissions on this particular clause drawing our attention to the real plight of infants who are abandoned. They offered concrete suggestions, in particular, dealing with places of safety and counselling for pregnant women. Although the committee members sympathised with the submissions and share the concerns, these do not fall within the scope of the Justice department, but it rather falls under Health and Social Development respectively. Therefore the committee has decided to refer these concerns to the Portfolio Committees on Health and Social Development.
With regard to admission of guilt fines, chief magistrates determine the fines payable in terms of admission of guilt offences in different magisterial districts. So the way it works is that if you are caught driving, for example, 80 km in a 60 km zone, you may be fined R100 in Cape Town but R300 in Somerset West which obviously, in terms of the equality provisions of the Constitution, cannot be correct. So the aim of the amendment is to allow the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to determine which offences will qualify for admission of guilt fines and also determining the actual amount payable.
The committee has proposed that the Minister must submit any such determinations to Parliament for approval. Submissions were received and there was some debate as to whether the Minister should set the admission of guilt fines or whether that should possibly be a judicial function. However, we did get a legal opinion on the matter from the Chief State Law Advisors who concurred it is within the Minister’s right to do so as it is a delegated legislative function.
The committee received a number of submissions on admission of guilt fines. In particular, very often people pay admission of guilt fines without actually realising the implications thereof and that they might or might not actually end up with a record. They think if they pay it will simply go away. So the committee has requested the department to investigate the feasibility of including remarks on the written notice or the summons to alert the accused person of his or her right to legal representation and also alerting him or her to the implications of paying the admission of guilt fine.
With regard to the National Register for Sex Offenders, members will remember that last year we passed the Sexual Offences Act, which creates a National Register for Sex Offenders. What the register seeks to do is to create a database of people who have been convicted of sexual offences so as to prevent these people from dealing with children and working in positions, such as teachers or health workers, where they come in close contact with children.
The register was supposed to be up and running by 16 December 2008. However, we have been informed by the department that there are real implementation problems in setting up the register because the register will not only include people who are convicted of sexual offences now, but also people who have been convicted of sexual offences in the past. So what needs to be done is that all the old dockets have to be processed and the data has to be put into the system which will take quite some time.
The other requirement is that, in terms of the register, clearance certificates have to be issued to teachers, health care professionals and childcare workers who work with children and this would also require an enormous amount of data capturing and fingerprinting which is causing the delay.
The committee did however view the sex offenders register as important and the Sexual Offences Act as being a very important piece of legislation. Therefore it is crucial that the register works properly. And for that reason we decided to grant an extension to the department from the 16 December 2008 until June 2009 to get the register in order.
Finally, the Bill provides for an extension of the statutory periods in which the department must make rules of procedure in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, as well as the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The rules have been outstanding for quite some time and while the delay is regrettable, I think it would be only fair to inform the House of the reasons for the delay.
Rules were tabled initially after the Acts were implemented. The portfolio committee at the time raised certain concerns and the rules were withdrawn. Thereafter, new rules were made but the then Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development had serious concerns in relation to the rules and they were withdrawn. So those people and, no doubt, the opposition will criticise the delay. It is not true for the opposition to argue that nothing has been done; a lot of work has been done, it is just to get final consensus on these rules.
To quote the hon Yunus Carrim from the the Justice committee, “once the rules are with us we will process these rules as an absolute priority.” The hon Carrim has said that he doesn’t care if the Justice Committee sits here on Christmas Eve and process the rules. We will definitely be processing these rules as an absolute priority because these rules are so necessary for the effective implementation of these two pieces of legislation, which really goes to the heart of our constitutional democracy. So we must give it serious attention.
Lastly, let me thank the members of the committee who had to do the Criminal Procedure Act, the Directorate of Special Operations legislation and this piece of legislation all at once. They really did go the extra mile. Let me thank, in particular, from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Lawrence Bassett and Adv Theresa Ross. May I say to the Minister and the Deputy Minister that they truly are assets to your department and please give them a day off because we’ve worked them to the bone.
If I could just draw the attention of the House to the correction list that members will find on their desks, when we submitted the proofs of the Bills to the printers we had checked them, but unfortunately one or two printing errors still slipped in. There are only two errors; one would just be to change the wording of correctional facilities in plural to correctional facility in singular. This would be in clause 4 and clause 9. Then in clause 7 the square brackets should not be before the word “if” but after the word “if”. So members have the list of corrections, and having said that I rise to support the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill. Thank you unconditionally.
Mr L K JOUBERT: Chairperson, may I, first of all, congratulate the new Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development on his appointment. I read in the Mail & Guardian that he describes his new job as “walking in the eye of a storm”.
Some months ago, the Deputy Minister admitted that the Criminal Justice System has become dysfunctional, and there is indeed a great challenge for the new Minister. We look upon the portfolio of Justice and Constitutional Development as one of the most important portfolios in the Cabinet. I want to assure the Minister that the DA will support all efforts to improve our justice system.
This Bill contains 40 clauses, as you have heard, and it seeks to amend about 15 unrelated different Acts. I will not be able, in the time at my disposal, to deal with the detail of the Bill. In Afrikaans we refer to this type of Bill as a “rommelkaswet”. The English translation of “omnibus Act” does not really convey the same meaning. “Rommelkas” is a cupboard in which you throw all the things you can’t deal with at the time and, as far as law is concerned, when the cupboard becomes full, you tinker the contents into a Bill.
There is a convention that such a Bill may not contain contentious matters. For that reason the committee rejected the clause that would have resulted in unmarried, same-sex partners being in a more favourable position than heterosexual permanent partnerships as far as intestate succession is concerned. What remains, therefore, really is uncontroversial and we support the Bill.
Aanvaarding beteken nie noodwendig goedkeuring nie. [Acceptance does not necessarily mean approval.]
We are seriously concerned that we are forced, once again, to extend the deadline for the rules of procedure for the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the rules of judicial review for the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The hon Johnson referred to this.
These are both year 2000 Acts, and it is totally unacceptable that the rules have not yet been made eight years down the line. I wish to make it clear that in agreeing to a further extension, we are not condoning the executive’s tardy behaviour, but we simply have no choice. I want to plead with members, especially with members on the government benches, not to allow the executive to treat Parliament with such contempt.
The last point I want to raise relates to the number of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act. I think there are 14 clauses in this Bill amending the Criminal Procedure Act. Yet we have just now, 10 minutes ago or so, passed a Bill that amends the Criminal Procedure Act. Why were these 14 clauses not included in that amending Bill? I couldn’t get a logical answer to this question and my worry is that it indicates a lack of co-ordination. We should guard against amending legislation in such a piecemeal manner. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mnr J H VAN DER MERWE: Voorsitter, ek wil graag aansluit by die vorige spreker met die gelukwensing van die nuwe Minister vir Justisie en Staatkundige Ontwikkeling, mnr Surty, wat so lekker sit en gesels daar en my nie hoor as ek hom komplimenteer nie. Hy praat baie beter Afrikaans as jy, Mike.
Mnr, die Voorsitter, ek wil u sê met die aanstelling van die nuwe Minister waai daar inderdaad ’n vars bries deur die Departement vir Justisie en Staaatkundige Ontwikkeling. Daar rus ’n groot taak op die agb Minister om die Adjunkminister by te staan in sy pragtige poging om die strafregstelsel weer op die been te kry. Net soos die DA gesê het, kan u daarvan seker wees dat die Inkatha Vryheidsparty ook vir u sal ondersteun in al die stappe wat u, die Adjunkminister, en die amptenare gaan neem om die strafregstelsel weer reg te kry. Daar is natuurlik die probleme in die siviele reg wat ons ook sal moet aanpak.
Wat hierdie wetsontwerp betref, is ek nie van plan om te herhaal wat almal gesê het nie, behalwe net dat ons dit ondersteun. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.) [Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I would like to join the previous speaker in congratulating the new Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, Mr Surty, who is blissfully sitting there talking and does not hear me when I compliment him. He speaks Afrikaans much better than you do, Mike.
Mr Chairperson, I want to tell you that the appointment of the new Minister is indeed a fresh breeze sweeping through the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. The hon Minister has a huge responsibility to support the Deputy Minister in his admirable attempt to re-establish the Criminal Justice System. Like the DA said, you can be assured that the Inkatha Freedom Party will also support you in all the steps that you, the Deputy Minister, and the officials will take to rectify the Criminal Justice System once again. Obviously there are problems in civil law which we will also have to address.
Regarding this Bill, I do not have any intention to repeat what everyone has said, except that we support it.]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, in South Africa the Constitution governs as supreme law, insisting that all laws and actions be in line with it. Our Constitution is centred on the values of democracy and strives to uphold the rights of all people.
In view of the amending Bill, it is evident in the cases of Volks vs Robinson in 2005 and Gory vs Kolver and Others in 2007 how the issues of human rights may be a dilemma and how these parties may have correctly forwarded their grievances as a contravention of the Constitution and an imposition on their rights.
The MF, however, welcomes this Judicial Matters Amendment Bill, which clearly highlights and creates a platform to address the issues. We support the Bill. Thank you.
Mr J B SIBANYONI: Chairperson, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers and hon Members of Parliament, this Bill brings about some initial changes. It includes an amendment of section 72 of the Attorneys’ Act of 1979. This Act is amended in order to increase the fines that may be imposed by the Council of the Law Society which fines an attorney or candidate attorney guilty of unprofessional conduct.
It is suggested that the maximum fines be increased from R10 000 to R100 000 in the case of attorneys and from R2 000 to R20 000 in the case of candidate attorneys. The maximum fines were last adjusted in 1993. The increased fines will ensure greater protection to members of the public.
Nangikhuluma ngokuvikelwa komphakathi ngifuna ukutjho bona izinto sezitjhugulukile kwanjesi. Ekuthomeni ibizelo lobuqcwetha gade lithathwa njengelihlonipheke khulu. Begade libizwa ngokuthiwa … (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)
[I am talking about the safety of the community. I would like to say that things have changed now. A career as an attorney was considered a highly respected profession before. It was called …]
… a noble profession.
Ibizelo lokuhlonipheka. Kodwana eselesikubonile esikhathini sanjenganje, sibona abantu ababandulelwe ukuba maqcwetha, abasanakho bonyana baphathe umphakathi ngendlela ehloniphekileko. Uthola nasikhuluma ngabantu khulukhulu abatlhagako bonyana ngibo ababongazimbi khulu. Kubakhona amaqcwetha - isibonelo engingasitjho ngileso seembawo zabantu abatjhayiswa ziinkoloyi endleni. Uthole bonyana nakukhona imali ebhadelwe yi-Road Accident Fund - athatha imali eningi atjhiye labobantu bangasanalitho. Lokho kuthinta khulukhulu abefelokazi neentandane. Ngalokho-ke amaqcwetha amukelweko begodu afungiswa bonyana umsebenzi lo bazawenza ngefanelo, lokhuyana nabaphambukako kufanele kuqiniswe isandla sokubajezisa. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraphs follows.)
[It is a noble profession. What we are seeing now, are trained attorneys who do not treat the community with respect. You will find that the poor people are the ones who are the victims. An example would be with regard to those attorneys who handle the applications of the people who are hit by cars. You will find that when money is paid out by the Road Accident Fund, they take a lot of it and leave the victims with nothing. This affects mostly widows and orphans. Therefore, attorneys who are admitted to the profession and take the oath to perform their work accordingly should face serious disciplinary action when they deviate.]
I also want to talk about the amendment of the Debt Collectors Act, Act 114 of 1998. The envisaged amendment to the Debt Collectors Act, amongst others, will allow the Minister to make regulations regarding the powers and duties of a curator bonis, the powers and duties of a Master when approaching a curator bonis, and the recusal of members of disciplinary committees.
With regard to disciplinary committees, further amendments will have the effect of allowing members of the Council of Debt Collectors to remain in office after their term of office has expired, purely for the purpose of finalising partly heard disciplinary proceedings in which they were involved. This is intended to provide continuity in partly heard matters.
I also want to talk about extra judicial jurisdiction. A further amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act is in terms of jurisdiction which is conferred on South African courts to adjudicate on offences committed by South African officials who, while on diplomatic duty abroad, cannot be prosecuted in a foreign country due to diplomatic immunity.
If such offences committed abroad are also offences in terms of South African law, the offenders will be tried before South African courts.
Sihlalo, lokhu kuzokwenza bona abantu esibathumela emaphasini wangaphetjheya njengabazenda, nangabe kunemithetho ebayiphulako bazakulethwa la eSewula Afrika bazokugwetjwa khona, bangakarwa wukuthi angeze bajeziswa phambi kweenkoro zokusekela. Siyazi bona amakhotho weSewula Afrika akanawo amandla wokwalela bona loyomuntu angagwetjwa. Yeke- ke ukutjhugululwa kwalomthetho kuzokwenza bona nawuphule umthetho ngaphandle ugwetjwe la eSewula Afrika. (Translation of isiNdebele paragraph follows.)
[Chairperson, people whom we are sending to foreign countries as ambassadors, will be repatriated to South Africa for their convictions if they break certain laws; they should not be happy thinking that they will not be punished by the courts. We know that South African courts do not have the powers to refuse prosecution of such people. Therefore, the amendments to this Act will ensure that if you break the law outside the country you will be prosecuted here in South Africa.]
I also want to talk about the amendments in so far as sentences are concerned. The Bill brings about some proviso in that if the accused was tried in a regional court and was legally represented at the trial, or if the accused and the Director of Public Prosecutions agree thereto, or if the prospective appeal is against the sentence only, or if the petition relates solely to the application for condonation, a copy of the judgment, which includes the reasons for convictions and sentence, shall suffice for the purposes of a petition. This will make it easier for appeals to be processed, because we know that to some people appeals are cumbersome and challenging.
Therefore, this amendment will have the effect of making it easier for appeals to continue. The ANC supports the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Order! That concludes the debate. I take it that members have noted the textual corrections to the Bill moved by hon C B Johnson. Are there any objections to the Bill, with textual corrections, being read a second time? No objection.
CLAUSE 4
On page 4, in line 6, to omit ``correctional facilities’’ and to
substitute ``correctional facility’’.
On page 4, in line 11, to omit ``correctional facilities’’ and to
substitute ``correctional facility’’.
On page 4, in line 15, to omit ``correctional facilities’’ and to
substitute ``correctional facility’’.
CLAUSE 7
On page 6, in line 17, to omit ``and [if the said]’’ and to substitute
and if [the said]’’.
CLAUSE 9
On page 8, in line 26, to omit ``correctional facilities’’ and to
substitute ``[prison] correctional facility’’.
Bill, with textual corrections, read a second time.
CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO BOARD OF MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AND DIVERSITY AGENCY
Mr I VADI: Chairperson, Mr Khumalo had to present this report on our behalf. But for some reason or another, he is not here. So, I thought I would stand in for him. In December this year, there will be two vacancies on the Board of the Media Development and Diversity Agency - the MDDA. In terms of the law, the National Assembly has to make a recommendation to the President about who should fill these vacancies. The Portfolio Committee on Communications therefore invited the public to submit nominations of prospective candidates for the posts. We received 27 nominations in total. We then short-listed nine of the nominated people for interviews, and their names were published in the newspaper. The committee is therefore pleased to recommend to the House the names of Mrs Phumelele Ntombela-Nzimande and Dr Tanya Bosch for approval. If the House agrees, these two names will then be forwarded to the President for appointment.
Mrs Phumelele Ntombela-Nzimande is a social worker by profession.
Mr M J ELLIS: What else is she?
Mr I VADI: She has served in senior positions in the Department of Communications for a while as a deputy director-general and also as an acting director-general. She has also served on the Commission on Gender Equality. Currently, she serves as the Chief People’s Officer at the SABC, Mr Ellis.
Mr M J ELLIS: What is the name of her husband? I can’t … [Interjections.]
Mr I VADI: Her husband’s name is Blade Nzimande. But we are not discussing Mr Blade Nzimande today. We are discussing his partner. She is a person in her own right and she is entitled to serve on the Board of the MDDA. I don’t think we should judge Mrs Ntombela-Nzimande on the basis of her husband’s credentials.
Mr M J ELLIS: But if we did then she … [Interjections.]
Mr I VADI: No, then you must accept that she is a person in her own right and that she has the right to stand and serve in any capacity.
She also served on the advisory council of the Human Sciences Research Council and the Council of the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Dr Tanya Bosch is a young academic. She is currently working at the University of Cape Town. She has extensive experience in the media field, having published numerous papers in accredited journals on community radio and in print media. She was formally a station manager at Bush Radio and she has international experience derived from working at a radio station in Jamaica.
Both these women are competent in their fields. In the case of Ms Ntombela- Nzimande, I think we are particularly interested in appointing her to the MDDA because she will bring in novel TV experience. The MDDA has quite a few people dealing with print and community radio at the moment. But we don’t have somebody who can promote and sponsor community TV as part of the work of the MDDA. So, it is my pleasure then to recommend these two names for appointment. Thank you very much.
Ms M SMUTS: Chairperson, the DA will enthusiastically support the appointment of Dr Tanya Bosch. But we will object to these appointments because the other vacancy should have gone back to the incumbent, Mazibuko Jara, whose term expired and who is eligible for reappointment and who was willing to be reappointed.
Mazibuko Jara, thanks to his intellectual discipline, would have continued the tradition of good corporate governance and financial probity that the MDDA has built up since its inception under the chairmanship of Khanyi Mkhonza, who is now the chair of the SABC Board. It built this reputation under its two chief executive officers, first Libby Lloyd and now Lumko Mtimde. Jara chaired, during his tenure, the MDDA’s tender committee and reviewed its policies to bring them in line with the Public Finance Management Act. So, his ideological bent is not the same as ours. But I respect his motives in promoting, for example, co-operatives for economies of scale, and the fact that he dreams, in his words, of co-operation with commercial media for the distribution of the so-called atypical media like trade union publications such as the well-funded The Educators’ Voice, which piles up in trade union offices instead of reaching the readers.
He is my sort of communist, as I told the communications committee - to the delighted agreement of the hon Lumka Yengeni - whereas their choice, Mrs Nzimande, is her sort of communist. Their choice is of course the ubiquitous Mrs Blade Nzimande, Phumelele, who is also, as you have just heard, the so-called Chief People’s Officer of the SABC. A Chief People’s Officer is not a human resources person as you would think, but has more of a politburo stakeholder function. In this capacity, Mrs Nzimande has lately supported the SABC’s Chief Executive Officer, Dali Mpofu, who has finally utterly and completely lost his court cases against the SABC Board; who must take responsibility for the poor annual report emanating from the time of the previous board; who faces a string of disciplinary charges; and who has transformed into a Zuma supporter since Polokwane.
Mr Mazibuko Jara was expelled from the Young Communist League because he opposed the SACP’s support for Mr Zuma. The purger-in-chief of Mr Mazibuko Jara from the party was Mr Blade Nzimande, as I understand it. The purging of Mazibuko Jara from the MDDA is therefore now a kind of a next step.
To the SACP, it seems to me that there is no such thing as an independent professional, not even, or especially not, in the fourth estate. After all, I recall that Mr Nzimande told Media24 to fire Mathata Tsedu as editor of City Press because his relationship with the Zuma ANC was unsatisfactory. Finally, the DA opposes this purge which is just another manifestation of the bigger purge that the SACP is trying to carry out at the SABC with the blind support of the Zuma ANC. [Applause.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, as witnessed recently, the Portfolio Committee on Communications has become a battleground for the new ANC leadership and its alliance partners to purge pro-Mbeki persons from communication-related institutions. The committee’s decision not to recommend Mr Mazibuko Jara, a board incumbent, for reappointment to the MDDA Board, is a glaring example of this purge being carried out. Mr Jara has done sterling work at the MDDA, and he was available for reappointment but he was overlooked because of his supposed political ties. In fact, as Ms Smuts has also pointed out, Mr Jara was expelled from the Young Communist League because he did not agree with the communists’ support for Mr Jacob Zuma as president of the ANC. It is whispered that Mr Blade Nzimande was the driving force behind Mr Jara’s expulsion. Now the committee has recommended Mrs Phumelele Ntombela-Nzimande, Mr Blade Nzimande’s wife, for appointment to the board in the place of Mr Jara. If this is not a clear cut case of conflict of interest and political manipulation, then I don’t know what it is.
The IFP cannot support this purge which is being instigated by the SACP with the support of the ANC. The IFP, however, supports the nomination of Dr Tanya Bosch to the MDDA Board.
Ms S RAJBALLY: In light of the role that media plays in South Africa, the MF believes it is extremely crucial that the media be allowed the fullest expanse of freedom of expression, and that it should not be labelled in any way as party-aligned. The media’s expression may be manipulated in many instances, but so is politics. In many instances, the media exhibits people’s opinions and situations, and is their eyes and ears.
The MF supports the selection of the candidates to this auspicious board. We further call on the board to enhance and ensure the freedom of the press so that our people may be informed and so that we as government and all organs of state may remain accountable to the system of democracy.
The MF supports the selection of the candidates and wishes the board well in an effective delivery. I thank you, Chairperson.
Debate concluded.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): Thank you hon member. I now put the question. The question before the House is that the recommendation for the appointment of Dr T Bosch and Ms P Ntombela-Nzimande to the Media Development and Diversity Agency Board, be approved.
Are there any objections to the recommendations as read out? I will now put the question. Those in favour will say aye.
HON MEMBERS: Aye!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON: (Mr K O Bapela): Those against will say no.
Hon MEMBERS: No!
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): I think the ayes have it.
The objections of the DA and the IFP are noted. Dr T Bosch and Ms P Ntombela-Nzimande will accordingly be recommended to the President for appointment to the Media Development and Diversity Agency Board.
Question agreed to (Democratic Alliance and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr K O Bapela): We will now proceed with the business, but before we conclude, the Speaker wants to come back and deal with an earlier matter on which she wants to address the House.
PEVIOUS RULING ON A MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE
(Statement)
The SPEAKER: How can I be called just to adjourn the House? [Laughter.]
Hon members, I was called back because I gave a ruling earlier on a matter related to a motion without notice. The practice has always been that the Chief Whips or the Whips meet and look at a text and then agree or make amendments so that we do not have objections because we have rules.
We have Rule 97 and 98, in particular Rule 98(3), which make it very clear that once there is an objection to that kind of a motion – by any member by the way - you cannot allow it That right, which we gave to the Whips, has actually taken the responsibility from us as Presiding Officers to study the motions.
I have looked at the motion and asked the Whips to come together before we adjourn today because what was actually problematic is something that could have been dealt with easily.
I have been told that even with the time that I gave them to come together; they have not done anything in this regard. Therefore, I will ask that it stands over because it is something in recognition of South Africa, and I think once they have found the right wording, they will come back with it to the House tomorrow. If you are all happy with it, then that brings us to the adjournment of this sitting. Thank you. The House adjourned at 15:34. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
(1) The JTM in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) classified the following
Bills as section 75 Bills:
a) Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Bill [B 75
– 2008] (National Assembly – sec 75)
b) Revenue Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 81 – 2008] (National
Assembly – sec 75).
(2) The JTM in terms of Joint Rule 160(6) classified the following
Bills as money Bills:
a) Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 76 – 2008] (National
Assembly – sec 77)
b) Eskom Subordinated Loan Special Appropriation Bill [B 77 –
2008] (National Assembly – sec 77)
c) Finance Bill [B 78 – 2008] (National Assembly – sec 77)
d) Government Employees Pension Fund (Condonation of Interrupted
Service) Bill [B 79 – 2008] (National Assembly – sec 77)
e) Revenue Laws Amendment Bill [B 80 – 2008] (National Assembly –
sec 77)
2. Membership of Committees
1) Joint Budget Committee
(a) Mr E M Sogoni has been appointed as a member of the Joint
Budget Committee.
(b) Mr E M Sogoni has been elected as co-chairperson of the
Joint Budget Committee with effect from 21 October 2008.
National Assembly
The Speaker
- Withdrawal of paper tabled
Withdrawal by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development
of Draft Rules made in terms of section 7(3) of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act No 3 of 2000) and tabled on 9
October 2007. 2. Referral to Committee of paper tabled
(1) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and
report:
Legal Aid Guide for 2008: 11th edition in terms of section 3A of
the Legal Aid Act, 1969 (Act No 22 of 1969).
TABLINGS
National Assembly
-
The Speaker
(a) Draft Notice and Schedule submitted in terms of section 2(4) of the Judges Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 2001 (Act No 47 of 2001), determining the rate at which salaries are payable to Constitutional Court judges and judges annually, with effect from 1 April 2008, for approval by Parliament.
(b) Draft Notice and Schedule submitted in terms of section 12(3) of the Magistrates’ Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993), determining the rate at which salaries are payable to magistrates annually, with effect from 1 April 2008, for approval by Parliament. Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and report.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the National Environment Laws Amendment Bill [B 35B-2007] (National Assembly – sec 76(1)), dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism, having considered the National Environment Laws Amendment Bill [B 35B-2007] (National Assembly – sec 76(1)), amended by the National Council of Provinces and referred to the committee, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the National Environment Management: Waste Bill [B 39D-2007] (National Assembly- sec 76), dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism, having considered the National Environment Management: Waste Bill [B 39D-2007] (National Assembly – sec 76), amended by the National Council of Provinces and referred to the committee, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the National Environment Management: Integrated Coastal Management Bill [B 40D-2007] (National Assembly – sec 76), dated 22 October 2008: The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism, having considered the National Environment Management: Integrated Coastal Management Bill [B 40D-2007] (National Assembly – sec 76), amended by the National Council of Provinces and referred to the committee, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B76– 2008] (National Assembly- sec 77), dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered and examined the
Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B76 – 2008] (National Assembly – sec
77), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a
Money Bill, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Eskom Subordinated Loan Special Appropriation Bill (2008/09 – 2010/11 Financial Years) [B77– 2008] (National Assembly- sec 77), dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered and examined the
Eskom Subordinated Loan Special Appropriation Bill (2008/09 – 2010/11
Financial Years) [B77– 2008] (National Assembly – sec 77), referred to
it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a Money Bill,
reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Finance Bill [B78– 2008] (National Assembly- sec 77, dated 22 October 2008.
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered and examined the
Finance Bill [B78– 2008] (National Assembly – sec 77), referred to it
and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a Money Bill, reports
that it has agreed to the Bill.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill [B80– 2008] (National Assembly- sec 77), dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered and examined the
Revenue Laws Amendment Bill [B80– 2008] (National Assembly – sec 77),
referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a Money
Bill, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Revenue Laws Second Amendment Bill [B81– 2008] (National Assembly- sec 75), dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered and examined the
Revenue Laws Second Amendment Bill [B81– 2008] (National Assembly – sec
75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a
section 75 Bill, reports the Bill without amendments.
- Report of the Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions on the Legislative proposal to amend the Labour Relations Act (No 66 of 1995), dated 22 October 2008:
The Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special
Petitions, having considered the Legislative proposal to amend the
Labour Relations Act (No 66 of 1995) submitted by Mr M Lowe, and having
consulted with the Department of Labour, recommends that permission not
be given to the member to proceed with the proposal.
- Report of the Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions on the Legislative proposal to amend the Employment Equity Act (No 55 of 1998), dated 22 October 2008:
The Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special
Petitions, having considered the Legislative proposal to amend the
Employment Equity Act (No 55 of 1998) submitted by Mr W Spies, and
having consulted with the Department of Labour, recommends that
permission not be given to the member to proceed with the proposal.
- The Portfolio Committee on Justice & Constitutional Development, having considered the Legal Aid Guide, 2008, reports as follows:
1. The Committee believes that it is not reasonable that we have the
choice of either accepting or rejecting the Legal Aid Guide, and
may not propose any amendments to it. We feel that consideration
should be given in the new Legal Aid Board legislation referred to
below to the Committee having some appropriate form of role in the
finalisation of the Guide.
2. The Committee is reasonably satisfied with the Guide, but would
have preferred more time to apply our mind to the Guide. However,
with the limited number of sittings of Parliament in view of the
pending elections, the Committee had no choice but to process the
Guide expeditiously. The Committee is able to adopt the Guide, with
these reservations, because it has already previously considered
some of the key issues in the Guide during formal and informal
exchanges with the Legal Aid Board, Ministry and Department.
3. The Committee notes that the Legal Aid Act was passed in 1969 and
has been amended on several occasions since then, and that a new
Legal Aid Bill that is consistent with the 1996 Constitution and
addresses new issues that have arisen since 1994 is being drafted.
The Committee urges the Ministry to introduce this Bill to
Parliament within 2 years of the new five-year term of Parliament.
4. Consideration needs to be given in the new Bill to the Legal Aid
Guide being considered by Parliament every two years instead of
every year.
5. The Committee expresses its concern that it took so long for the
Guide to be introduced to Parliament, but expresses its
appreciation to the Ministry, Department and LAB for finalising the
Guide expeditiously following an agreement 6 months ago to do so.
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs on the Report and Financial Statements of Vote 4 – Department of Home Affairs for 2007- 2008, dated 22nd of October 2008.
The Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs met on the 22nd of October 2008
to consider the Report and Financial Statements of Vote 4—Department of
Home Affairs for 2007-2008, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements and Performance Information of Vote 4 for
2007-2008.
The Committee raised concern with the successive disclaimer of opinion
from the Auditor-General.
The Committee, therefore recommends that the Minister of Home Affairs
considers seeking assistance from the Department of Public Service and
Administration and the National Treasury on its internal financial
control and the filling of positions. This recommendation is informed
by the Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs requesting
support from the National Treasury during his presentation to the
Committee.
The Minister of Home Affairs should report to the Committee on the
implementation of the recommendation within a month after the adoption
of this report by the National Assembly.
Report to be considered
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Government Employees Pension Fund (Condonation of Interrupted Service) Bill [B79– 2008] (National Assembly- sec 77), dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered and examined the
Government Employees Pension Fund (Condonation of Interrupted Service)
Bill [B79– 2008] (National Assembly – sec 77), referred to it, and
classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a Money Bill, reports that
it has agreed to the Bill.
The Committee further recommends that a mechanism be put in place for
the relevant portfolio committee to be consulted before petitions such
as the one that gave rise to this bill, are approved by the House.
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Amendment Bill [B9B- 2006], dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development,
having considered the Regulation of Interception of Communications and
Provision of Communication-Related Information Amendment Bill [B9B-
2006] and proposed amendments of the National Council of Provinces
(Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 17 September 2008,
p1707), referred to the Committee, reports the Bill with amendments
[B9C - 2006].
The Committee further reports as follows:
While the Committee accepts the amendments proposed by the National
Council of Provinces, it nevertheless requests that the Minister
monitors and evaluates their implementation and report his findings to
Parliament within two years of this report being adopted.
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions on the Legislative proposal regarding Expunction of Criminal Records from Apartheid Laws, dated 22 October 2008:
The Committee on Private Members` Legislative Proposals and Special
Petitions, having considered the Legislative proposal regarding the
Expunction of Criminal Records from Apartheid Laws, submitted by Mr J
Selfe, and having consulted with the Department of Justice and
Constitutional Development, recommends that permission not be given to
the member to proceed with the proposal.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Notice on Remuneration of Constitutional Court Judges and Judges, dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development,
having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Notice
on Remuneration of Constitutional Court Judges and Judges in terms of
Judges Remuneration and conditions of Employment Act, 2001 (Act No 47
of 2001), tabled on 22 October 2008 and referred to it, recommends that
the House in terms of section 2(4) of the Act, approves the said
Notice.
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Notice on Remuneration of Magistrates, dated 22 October 2008:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development,
having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Notice
on Remuneration of Magistrates in terms of section 12(3) of the
Magistrates Act 1993, (Act No 90 of 1993), tabled on 22 October 2008
and referred to it, recommends that the House in terms of section 12(3)
of the Act, approves the said Notice with the exception of the
references to the President: Divorce Court and Presiding Office:
Divorce Court contained in Schedule 1 of the Notice.
Report to be considered.