A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
HOME AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE; SOCIAL SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE: JOINT MEETING
29 April 2002
IMMIGRATION BILL: DELIBERATIONS
Co-Chairpersons: Mr Mokoena (ANC)
Ms Jacobus (NCOP, ANC)
Documents handed out:
Immigration Bill [B79 - 2001]
The Committee continued their deliberations from Clause 29 and ended at Clause 41. The clauses on migration control, the structure of migration control, deportation and detention of illegal foreigner were contentious and were discussed at length. It was decided that many of the Clauses need to be revisited for finalisation.
Clause 29: Objectives and functions of migration control
Mr Grobler (DP) referred to Clause 29(1)(h) and asked whether it should read "border posts" instead of "borders".
Ms Jacobus asked whether the control of borders is the function of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) instead of Home Affairs.
Mr Grobler referred to Clause 29(2)(f)(ii) and asked whether it should read "illegal migration" instead of "migration" only.
Mr Tolo (ANC) said that the words in Clause 29(2)(f)(ii), "preventing migration towards the Republic", connotes immigration, as it is a coming into the Republic. Hence it should be "immigration" and not "migration".
Mr Waters (DP) said that that many responsibilities are being placed on the Department, which does not have the funds to carry out these responsibilities. Referring to Clause 29(1) (j)(ii), he said that this is the function of the Department of Labour. He referred to Clause 29(2) (e) and said that funding for training citizens is required and there is simply not enough money for it. He then referred to Clause 29(2)(f)(ii) and said that Mr Grobler had covered the point, he then referred to sub- Clauses (e) and (j) and said that they are problematic and require a great deal of funding.
Ms Jacobus said that some of the functions are those of Labour. She referred to Clause 29(1) (k) and said that the Department does not have the capacity to deal with administering fees, fines and other payments.
Mr Lekgoro (ANC) said that structurally, the objectives should be stated clearly in the beginning of the Bill, and should not be scattered about in the Bill. The drafters should kick out the irrelevant sections in the Bill.
Ms Jacobus said that the objectives should be extracted and be in the preamble of the Bill, rather than having them floating around in the Bill.
Mr Pretorius referred to Clause 29(2)(k) and said that he needed clarification on this issue.
Dr Ambrosini said that they are in the process of redrafting the Bill and this clause will be the first clause after the definitions. The differences between Clauses 29(1), 29(2) and 30 are as follows: Clauses 29(1) and (2) are the objectives, Clause 30 is the powers. This gives a great deal of legal as well as policy clarity on the issues.
With regards to boundaries, a great deal of discussion has revolved around this issue, and the purpose of the Bill is to create a function of border control. The SANDF does not have the exclusive competence to patrol the Borders and all sorts of agencies have the competence to do so, for example the Department of Agriculture, who controls borders in respect of animals. Patrolling the border to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country cannot be the sole responsibility of the SANDF as it needs specialised understanding and widespread investigative capacity. It is part and parcel of the law enforcement in South Africa. He mentioned the "push and pull factors" and said that the push factors happen outside the country and the purpose of the Bill is to recognise this function for the purposes of immigration. Hence Clauses 39 and 52 come together as a group of sections in this regard.
In respect of Clause 29(2)(g)(i) and (ii) the function of dealing with the problem of illegal migrants goes beyond boundaries, therefore one has to deal with these pull factors. One should recognise the fact that in bi-lateral talks with the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department was not keen to tackle the issue of immigration. This provision enables the Department to interact with other Departments and other countries to for example publicise that no jobs are available in South Africa. Sub-Clause (j)(i) and (ii) was raised with Business South Africa.
With regards to administrative fees in sub-clause (k) they are trying to create a link with the auditing section. There is no doubt that some entity has to deal with these issues, for example educating the public about xenophobia. There is the move to reduce the number and costs of permits which have to be issued, and try to finance issues like xenophobia.
In terms of the training of citizens, it is an object that ties in with the corporate permit environment, for the special training to replace foreigners with nationals. It is important that these be spelt out and no doubt it is the part of the parameters of the Bill.
Mr Tolo said Clause 29(2)(f)(i) and (ii) does not deal with migration rather it deals with immigration and this issue has not been discussed.
Mr Mokoena asked whether "borders" do include the external borders like the coastline. Borders and border posts are encroaching on the realm of the SANDF.
Mr Lekgoro said that it is important to differentiate between borders ad border posts because one cannot control a Border but one can administer a port of entry, therefore the Bill must be reworded to say exactly that.
Mr Smith said that Cabinet was happy with the differences but from an executive point of view covering a border in respect of intercepting migrants is a Home Affairs function.
If it is not the function of Home Affairs then it must be made clear that it is the function of the SANDF and if so, the SANDF must come before them and agree to undertake this function.
Ms Jacobus referred to Clause 29(2)(a) and (b), to the words "Department shall" and said that where Home Affairs marches into an institution and checks for identification it is unconstitutional, and it cannot be accepted that the Department enters the premises acting on suspicion or acting on information. This is not acceptable.
Mr Pretorius referred to the definition of Border and asked if somebody enters from a place which is not a port of entry, can they be charged?
Dr Amrosini replied that this is a policy issue. A border is the perimeter of the country but the Committee might decide differently. It was the intention of the White Paper and the Bill since day one. He referred to a person that crosses into the country via the Kruger Park, and asked whose responsibility it is to deal with that person, to detect and apprehend him? An illegal alien is not the responsibility of the SANDF and the SANDF does not have the prerogative of exercising the function of Border control.
In response to Ms Jacobus, he said that "shall" denotes a function; it is a duty and a job description. The general feeling is that Home Affairs cannot stop people in the middle of the street; therefore they must have the power to stop people in the middle of the street. Now there is no power to routinely inspect places, and they should begin to do this in order to address the problem of illegals in the country.
Mr Mokoena asked what the staff compliment of the Immigration Officers was.
Mr Lambinon said that he could not give a specific answer as far as the exact number of officers, but without taking into account the people at port of entry controls there are about 300 people at present.
Dr Ambrosini said that these people are in offices, some are not sent out physically into the territory.
Mr Mokoena replied that the SANDF has a staff complement of 90 000 people and even if they cannot cope with Border control, then how would Home Affairs?
Mr Chauke said he thought it is clear that the SANDF has the responsibility of border control in that they arrest people and hand them over to Home Affairs. Which unit of Home Affairs is patrolling the borders? He added that what is needed is a human rights culture in this Bill and a situation cannot be accepted where Home Affairs randomly enters any place, for example a restaurant, and requests people to produce their identity documents. The entire Clause needs to be reworded or scrapped.
Mr Sikakane said that Dr Ambrosini has the argument that we need this Clause for statutory purposes. The question on his mind was: if somebody crosses the border then which statutory charge can be laid against this person; would the Immigration Bill be the one?
Mr Pretorius commented that IDASA has been critical about Clause 29.
Dr Ambrosini said that that the Constitution does not give the SANDF the exclusive responsibility to patrol the borders. Detecting people is part of the investigation process, and if you do not have the function of patrolling the border, then the investigative function is interrupted. The IDASA submission is inaccurate. It might happen that you are stopped and asked for identification- it is no longer a requirement that every person is stopped and asked for their identification. Asking people at the workplace for their identification is better than stopping people in the streets. It is up to the Committee to decide on what they want Home Affairs to do in the next ten years.
Mr Lambinon said that if they wanted to remain within what is being done at present then they should remain in the realm of the Aliens Control Act. It is important that when border posts and borders are spoken about one must look at the draft legislation as a whole. Clause 59 says that that there must be consultation with the police and the SANDF. He accepted the point that immigration control must be done in a human rights based context.
Ms Van Wyk said that a Bill might be passed that does not come into action. There is no way the Department of Home Affairs can do what it sets out to do in the current form.
Ms Jacobus said that the State Law Advisors must sieve through the clause, remove the objects and put them at the beginning of the Bill.
Clause 30: Powers of the Department
Mr Grobler said that this is a contentious Clause. He referred to Clause 30(a) and said it should rather read "request to enter and inspect the workplace". He then referred to Clause (e), and said that they must get rid of this or make it more acceptable.
Mr Skosana said that the powers of the Department are in place once the Department is established, and it is not for this Bill to explain the powers of the Department. The Department itself should know its powers and as a result this part of the Bill need not be included. It should be taken out, as the Department knows exactly what it has to do since it is their duty to implement whatever laws it makes.
Mr Smith said that if the powers are not specified then the Department simply does not have the powers; the Department is instructed by the Bill and if is not a law then it cannot be done.
State Law Advisor, Advocate Tladi, said that whatever the Department does, it must have a basis from which it operates. If no powers are stated then there are problems if it is challenged, as a result it should be stipulated in the Bill.
Mr Skosana said that there should be clarity on the powers and functions stated in Clause (d)(i) and (ii).
Mr Pretorius asked if Clause (e) is absolutely necessary and whether or not it could be deleted. He asked for clarity on Clause (h) and who would represent the state in court. Furthermore, (j) was too broad.
Ms Jacobus said that there should be a specific amendment around (h).
Mr Sikakane said that with regards to (e) there must be an alternative to it. There must be a justification for a request to show one's identity.
Advocate Malatje said that "any person" in (j) means an authorised person in law: a person who will be authorised to perform a certain function. If it were not an authorised person then the Bill would not be valid. He asked if there is a feeling that it should read "any authorised person".
Ms Jacobus said that perhaps it should be qualified to say, "authorised person".
Dr Ambrosini said that the Bill uses the words "may request", which implies that any body has the powers to request to enter the premises. Either you have the power to enter or you do not.
If (e) is removed and if person X asks whether one is a foreigner or not, then the reply can legitimately be "It is for me to know and for you to find out". There would be no obligation on a person's side to answer if that provision is removed.
In respect of court processes, the jurisdiction of the courts is related exclusively to matters related to this Bill; hence it is not necessary to say "in respect of matters of this Act".
With regards to sub (j): it is a power, it deals with the Department's powers and not the powers of the person that they contract with; and (k) is a function. Home Affairs contracts all the time with outsiders to escort illegals when they are deported, as well as with the airports to do clearing work on their behalf.
Ms Jacobus said that the sentiment expressed under sub (e) gives the impression that anybody who does not look like a South African could be stopped and asked for the identity document. This Clause should be redrafted.
Mr Smith said that this issue of sub (e) should be considered when dealing with Clause 44 and be amended there.
Ms Jacobus stated that this section be flagged and considered when the Committee considers Clause 44.
Clause 31: Structure of migration control
Mr Pretorius said that the Bill empowers the Department to take certain actions. There is no "business plan" in place for the implementation of this Bill and how it will deal with these functions.
Mr Lekgoro said that in his opinion the "official" in Clause 31(1) should be the Director General. He referred to Clause 31(2)(b) and said that his concern in this Bill as well as in the Aliens control Act is that there is no provision as to who will receive, grant or reject the applications. There should be provisions to cater for this.
Mr Skosana referred to Clause 31(1) and said that he does not think it is correct to establish offices over and above the Home Affairs offices already in place, and which will run parallel to the current Home Affairs offices in place. This would complicate things.
Ms Van Wyk said that she is concerned about Clause 31(3)(c) and said that terrorism, arms and drug trafficking is not a function of Home Affairs and the sentence should stop at "law enforcement".
Mr Grobler said that there should be cooperation between the different Departments when it comes to issues like drug and arms trafficking.
Mr Sikakane said that Clause 31(1) should be clarified as it gives the impression that something new is going to come up in addition to the Home Affairs offices already in place.
Dr Ambrosini said that one of the cornerstones of migration reform is to decentralise the ordinary acts of migration control. At present all the work is done at Head Office, and as a result they want to decentralise the work to Regions to enable things to happen which without the Bill will not happen. There will be no duplication of resources and it creates an exception which otherwise would apply. There would be a Director for each region and it is important for the Minister to define these regions because it would carry statutorily recognised rights, duties and obligations. At present the only entity is Home Affairs, with the Regions, the Director of the Region will issue permit in his own name and will have to go to court and defend himself there if the need arises.
Mr Mokoena said that that it is a false premise to say that a new physical infrastructure will have to be inaugurated to cater for the function of receiving people into the country.
Ms Jacobus asked how the Minister would demarcate these regions.
Mr Pretorius asked whether we are creating a situation where additional structures and Departments would have to be created, as he is concerned that this would require additional money and personnel.
Mr Smith said that he requires clarity on Clause 31(3)(b) and whether Pretoria would be sued or the individual Director concerned.
Mr Tolo said that he does not think it is proper to legislate on an organogram of a department.
Dr Ambrosini said that there is no separate structure that will be implemented and there is no duplication of services. it will be the same people; the same offices, and they are not looking at increasing their functions, but rather changing the powers that these people are vested with. He said at present everything is handed to Head Office, and they are looking to simplify the process and permits by allowing them to be issued from where they are processed. In order for that to happen, legal provision needs to be made.
It is not an organogram, rather an ordinary activity that the Minister does, and is a mere legal entitlement. In terms of being sued, the Regional Director would be involved in court matters even though Head Office processes the documentation.
Mr Pretorius enquired whether the Regional Director dealing with applications would be the same person who will head the office at the regions.
Dr Ambrosini said that it would be the same person.
Clause 32: Powers and functions of Board
Ms Jacobus said that Clause 32 would follow Clause 28 and in effect will become Clause 29.
Mr Tolo said that the functions set out do not suggest that the Board is fulfilling an advisory function. He did not feel that the Board should be delegated other functions. The Board is above the Director General and it can indirectly instruct the Director General on matters.
Ms Van Wyk said that Clause 32 (1)(b) should be deleted.
Mr Grobler pointed out Idasa's submissions on this point and said that the Committee should take cognisance of the submissions.
Mr Smith said that some of the provisions are semantic, rather than substantial, as a result the terminology should be changed.
Ms Van Wyk said that she differs with Mr Smith's submission and said that it is a substantial issue. Semantics determines power and content, therefore the Clause must reflect what is intended to say rather than what we wish it to say.
Mr Smith replied that in order to have regulations, one needs policy first.
Mr Skosana said that as you read and interpret the Clause is different from what explanation the Department would forward.
Ms Jacobus suggested that the Clause be redrafted to reflect the advisory role of the Board.
Clause 33 Regulation making
Mr Mokoena said that the question of regulation making does not have to be encapsulated in a Clause in the Bill, rather it should be stated in a special schedule.
Mr Pretorius said that the period of twenty-one calendar days might be sufficient but sometimes there are problems where the notice period is insufficient due to holidays in between. Regulations need some form of Parliamentary interaction, as they are very important.
Ms Mars (IFP) suggested that the days be changed to court days to make provision for holidays such as Christmas and New Year.
Mr Smith noted that Regulations are tabled for Parliament's attention.
Ms Jacobus said that the Rules Committee is looking at delegated legislation at present and are holding workshops to try and grapple with the idea of what delegated legislation is to come to Parliaments attention.
Mr Tolo read out Labour's submission that called for extensive consultation with Parliament.
Ms Jacobus said that they should reflect on changing the days and reflect on Labours submission.
Mr Smith said that the Constitution requires regulations for amending the Bill for one month and perhaps 60 days would be too long.
Mr Lekgoro said that they should be guided by the fact that one does not want to delay what the Department wishes to implement. As a result the number of days should not be too few or too many. The manner in which Parliament is allowed to review the regulations and at the same time not delay the Department's work is crucial. The right to review should be included.
Ms Jacobus said that the drafters should assist them in this matter.
Mr Smith said that most legislation amounts to framework legislation and then subordinate legislation is relied on to give effect to it. He suggested that simply for tabling purposes the Regulations should be tabled and then Parliament can express its views on it.
Mr Lekgoro said that you can table regulations but there must be a Clause in the Bill to allow for it, also the power to say which regulation is out of order and be removed.
Mr Pretorius said that it is important to look at regulations because for example there is the South African Police Services which has an Act and which impacts on this Bill and hence if regulations are passed without full scrutiny this could lead to problems.
Dr Ambrosini said that there are difficulties in debating these issues because of the several Departments and role players. Regulations are republished in the Gazette so notice would come to Parliament
Clause 34: Adjudication and Review Procedures
Mr Mokoena suggested combining this Clause with Clause 33, as it seems to deal with regulations and reviews, and the two procedures seem to belong together.
Ms Jacobus said that this Clause deals with appeal mechanisms and does not belong to regulation making, it is something else, and should stand alone.
Ms Van Wyk suggested that if this Clause is dealt with now, then it impacts on whether they ere going to have Immigration courts.
Ms Jacobus suggested that this Clause be flagged and considered when dealing with the Clause on Immigration courts.
Clause 35: Illegal Foreigners
The committee agreed that the clause should remain in its current form.
Clause 36: Investigations
Mr Tolo said that he does not think that Home Affairs should have the power to investigate, as other organs of state possess this power.
Mr Skosana said that police officers should have the power to investigate and not the Department of Home Affairs.
Mr Mokoena suggested that Clause 36(1) be reviewed.
Mr Pretorius suggested that currently there is a shortage of trained people in the Department of Home Affairs, therefore the powers of arrest should be considered carefully.
Dr Ambrosini said that Clauses 36,37 and 38 are similar in substance, and this is a novel clause as there is a more human rights guarantee herein than in the other clauses. The same branch of people who will issue the permits would do the investigating. Because in these investigations no criminal docket is opened, it does not trigger the police into action. The Department is looking at building on the resources it has; other than investigations they need thinkers in the Department. He advised that rather than involving the police when a permit is issued, conditions should be attached to it, and these conditions must be policed. Nobody could do that unless things go wrong, and another agency would not have the same degree of enforcement and would not be an effective deterrent.
Mr Grobler suggested that instead of "officer" the word should be qualified with "immigration" and read "immigration officer".
Mr Smith said that the Committee should be careful about removing such a section. If it is removed it would emasculate immigration control. SAPS would only investigate a matter if a docket is in place, and if they should investigate then a different process is required. In addition to SAPS, SARS has this function of investigating.
Mr Lambinon added that police are involved with investigating criminals and these illegal immigrants are not criminals.
Adv Malatje said that there are immigration officials busy with this job at present, who investigate matters and call in the police when necessary. In relation to Clause 36(3) he said that any matter coming within the scope of the Department could be investigated.
Mr Mokoena said that the provisions in this clause are very wide as it reads "any premises" and "anything". He did not want there to be an immediate challenge to the law by the inclusion of these words in the Bill.
Dr Ambrosini said that if there is concern about Clause 36(5) being applicable beyond the field of immigration then one should read the beginning of sub -clause (5) which says " in the pursuance of this Act". Hence the net can only be cast as wide as the Act applies.
Mr Waters asked why no definition of "commissioners" is given. In terms of "investigative unit", other Departments have such units, and as long as there is a link to the Bill, he supports the unit, but if it transgresses the Bill then it will have to be re-examined.
Mr Skosana said that he required clarity on the issue of going beyond the borders of the country.
Ms Van Wyk said that there is no definition of "investigative unit". Secondly subsection (6) and (7) should be a foregone conclusion to subsection (4) and (5), and thirdly that subsection (9)(aa) and (bb) are unconstitutional.
Dr Ambrosini said that if the word "commissioner" were to be defined it would not add anything more to the clause. However if the Committee feels there is a problem with the word "commissioner" then the drafters can look at it again. Immigration goes beyond the boundaries- it originates elsewhere, therefore there is the need for enabling provisions to clarify the law on whether or not to liaise with other Departments.
Regarding the definition of "investigative unit", it is the same as "commissioners". It does not add anything more than restating what is mentioned in the clause. Sub clauses (4) and (5) have to be placed first as a legislative technique, and the powers have to be stated first. Sub- section (9) is not unconstitutional- it is standard practice across the world, and it is a matter of whether the Committee decides to keep the clause or not, but has nothing to do with constitutionality.
Mr Mokoena referred to line 50 and asked what is meant by "by day".
Dr Ambrosini replied that it is a general principle that everything is done during the day. The requirement of an officer identifying himself could be added into the clause.
Mr Chauke said that Home Affairs does not have the confidence in some of these structures. In respect of the police and the investigative units it is clear that they want to establish their police force. He added further that there is no cooperation between organisations.
Mr Waters said that currently SAPS and Home Affairs do joint projects as in Hillbrow. If it was left to SAPS alone, would they have to open a criminal docket for every illegal immigrant? This would flood the system.
Mr Grobler asked what is the meaning of Clause 36(5)(a).
Ms Van Wyk asked for clarity, as she did not say that sub clauses (6) and (7) should be removed, nor did she say that sub clause (4) and (5) should be complied with unless sub clauses (6) and (7) are complied with.
Mr Smith said that these functions are not that of the police. Did the Committee want to make it a police function? It is not correct to say that Home Affairs has a lack of confidence in the police merely because the Bill does not expressly state a few provisions clearly.
Mr Lambinon referred to the question on what would happen if the clause is scrapped and said that South Africa would become a paradise for illegal immigrants because the police would not perform the function of removing them. He said that there is cooperation between the police because when they swoop on criminals they call in Home Affairs to deal with the illegal immigrants. The greatest cooperation exists between the various departments.
Dr Ambrosini stressed that the Department is dealing with something which is extremely tight because where there are loopholes they will undoubtedly be used. He said that the purpose of the Bill is to write the law to guide the Department and how it must perform its functions. On the issue of warrants he said that it is issued in terms of the law.
Mr Waters said that illegals are not referred to as criminals, but technically they are criminals as they are committing an offence, but we must try not to treat them as criminals and the aim should be focused on removing them from the country.
Mr Pretorius remarked that at present powers of arrest are being conferred on organs other than SAPS.
Mr Mokoena asked whether the clause should be scrapped or flagged.
Ms Jacobus replied that the clause should be revisited the next day once the state law advisors, the drafters as well as the Committee has had time to think about it.
Mr Lekgoro said that the clause could not be removed; rather it should be redrafted in a manner that takes everybody's concerns into account. Mr Grobler agreed with this suggestion.
Clause 37:Deportation and Detention of Illegal Foreigners
Mr Mokoena referred to Clause 37(1)(a) and asked what is the Committee's attitude toward an illegal not being able to understand the language in which the notice of deportation is written, or not being able to understand English.
Mr Waters referred to sub clauses (3) and (4) and asked what would be the position if an illegal foreigner had no money for his deportation. He said that if the person were to be kept in jail it would be a waste of the taxpayer's money.
He referred to Clause 52 (1): fine and deportation costs, and said that it is more than likely that the average illegal foreigner will be poor and not be able to cover all costs. As a result the illegal foreigner will be put in jail and jail is not the best place for a person in this situation.
Mr Mokoena said that there was a High Court judgment in respect of costs. He asked how it would impact on this.
Dr Ambrosini replied that the Court judgment was in respect of fees and the constitutional right to remain in the country. The court held that the fees were too high unless the Home Affairs could justify the relationship between staying in the country (the benefit) and the fees.
In response to Mr Waters, Dr Ambrosini said that the difficulty is that people are sent abroad at no cost to themselves, and it is very costly to send a person back to Beijing for example. Furthermore, the Aliens Control Act says that a foreigner must pay for this deportation costs and there must be a mechanism in place to attach this person's assets in the foreign country to ensure that these costs are recovered.
Ms Jacobus said that the difficulty that Mr Waters is raising is about poor indigents from neighboring countries who do not have the means to go back to their country. If they are asked to pay R5000 or else go to jail then the situation the jails will be crammed will illegals. What is their position?
Mr Mokoena said that jails are already filled to the capacity, and it would be burdening the fiscus by throwing people into jail.
Mr Chauke said that there is the Clause 37 (4) offence as well as Clause 53: Administrative offences, and asked which should be followed.
Mr Waters said that he agreed with Dr Ambrosini that there is no middle ground: either you pay the deportation costs or be sent to jail. What is the position where a person has only R500 and can pay a portion of the fees? Could a compromise could be reached, rather than staying in jail a person can pay this R500 and be sent home?
Ms Van Wyk said that Clause 37(1)(d) is unreasonable; as it is unreasonable to have some person in detention for a long period. There should be some means test in place for assessing a person's capacity to pay a fee, and this means test should be included in Clause 37(3).
Dr Ambrosini replied that the issue with Clause 37(3) is one of discretion. If a person has no money then this discretion will not be used. It would be difficult to implement a means test and will be difficult to legislate. There must be a mechanism whereby people are ordered to pay but most illegals will not comply with this order. The only threat is sub clause (4). He said that they will consider the means test even though it is difficult.
Mr Chauke referred to Clause 37(1) and the place of holding, and asked whether there is a break away from holding people in jails and whether a place specifically for illegals can be set up, for example similar to the Lindela place of holding.
Mr Lambinon said that Correctional Services does not want illegal immigrants in jail as criminals are held there and they do not wish to make illegal immigrants their responsibility.
Mr Mokoena asked at what point do you detect that a person has no visa and or money- when a person enters the airport and you find that the documents are not in order? The illegal person should not be our responsibility, rather the responsibility of the airlines and the sending country.
Dr Ambrosini said that it is the responsibility of the airlines.
Mr Lekgoro referred to the submission made by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and said that their submission must be considered.
Clause 38: Ships
Ms Jacobus said that certain sub clauses should be redrafted as they are not gender sensitive.
Clause 39: Border Control
Ms Jacobus said that in light of the earlier discussions that the SANDF should be charged with this responsibility. The Clause should be amended to read "the Department shall" and "border" should be substituted with "points of entry". The title should be amended to read "points of entry control".
The Committee went on to consider Clauses 40 and 41, and the meeting was adjourned at 6 pm.