Hearing of evidence and deliberation on Magistrates Amendment Bill [B 92-97] and Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B 95-97]

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

04 May 1998
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

JUSTICE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

JUSTICE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
5 May 1998
HEARING OF EVIDENCE AND DELIBERATION OF MAGISTRATES AMENDMENT BILL [B 92-97] AND JUDICIAL MATTERS AMENDMENT BILL [B 95-97]

Magistrates Amendment Bill [B 92-97]
The draft bill was finalised but no voting occurred. Law Advisor, Mr J de Lange, put before the committee the proposed amendments for finalisation. Problems exist in the Civil Service Pensions Fund, as magistrates who retire before age 60 are penalised by having to pay a 20% fee. If the magistrate retires before age 65, the fee is 15%. It was also proposed that this clause be addressed in the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill, to which the committee was in agreement. There was agreement not to proceed with Clause 5 nor with the issue of the Public Service Commission reverting to the Magistrates Commission.

Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B 95-97]
Mr J Labuschagne, Legal Advisor, brought to the attention of the committee the drafting of new regulations concerning in-house security. In-house security does not fall under the Security Officers Act. Legal Advisor, Mr. Oosthuizen, pointed out that security trained by Eskom and mining houses is creating problems and that they should be brought under the control of the Security Officers Act; the Minister of Police should be approached. Mr. Oosthuizen explained that there is the power in the Act which can be extended to security house officers and the Minister can make the necessary proclamation to include them. Chairman Hofmeyer concluded the discussion by requesting that Mr. Oosthuizen approach Dr. Jacobs about this matter and report back to the committee.

Substitution of §73 of Act 24 of 1936, as amended by §20 of Act 16 of 1943, §24 of Act 99 of 1965 and §1 of Act 78 of 1980:
A long discussion ensued between Mr. Oosthuizen, Mr. Mahlangu (ANC), Mr.Guvane, and Chairman Hofmeyer (ANC) about the clarity of meaning in §73 1(b) regarding authorisation. Mr. Oosthuizen explained that authorisation is now extended to creditors. A trustee can go to creditors for authorisation or the master for authorisation. Mr. Mahlangu asked what happens if creditors consider and decide not to authorise. It was decided that Mr. Oosthuizen would review the clarity of meaning and possible omission of §73 1(b), or insert words in front of (b) to make the legislation clearer.

Clause 3(b) was discussed and it was agreed that a substantive clause be inserted until the bodies have been formed. L. Ngwane (ANC) questioned the overreaching use of Clause 4(d), which Mr. Oosthuizen agreed to investigate. It was determined that under Clause 5, the master can exercise the powers of §111 without prior obligations. There should be power for the master to charge the account if it has an improper charge. It was agreed that these requirements should be included with the old four.

There was no opposition to the amendment of §1of Act 105 of 1997, the short title and commencement. It was determined that a second division bill clause must be inserted in the bill.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Share this page: