Sheriffs Amendment Bill: discussion

Meeting report

JUSTICE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
5 August 1998
SHERIFFS AMENDMENT BILL

Documents handed out;
Sheriffs Amendment Bill
Sheriffs Amendment Bill: amendments agreed to (third draft)

SUMMARY
The committee had a brief and final discussion on the Sheriffs Amendment Bill.

MINUTES
No additions were made to clauses 1 to 3.

There were no additions to clause 4. The Chairperson pointed out that the time period indicated here was an existing provision which he thought was a good idea as there could be a rotation of the chairperson. He added that it would be the task of the minister to appoint the chairperson of the Sheriffs Board and that the Board could appoint the vice-chairperson.

Clauses 5 to 8 received no comment.

Clause 9 had been discussed in the previous day's meeting.

Clause 11 was rejected. A new clause had been drafted at the previous day's meeting. This new clause rather deals with the matter as misconduct on the part of debt collectors. Mr. Johan de Lange, the law advisor, indicated that the Board was pleased with the new clause.

There was no change to clause 12.

The amendment in clause 13 had been explained in the previous meeting.

Clause 14 was not further amended.

The law advisor indicated that the Board of Sheriffs are satisfied with the new provision in Clause 15 1A(b).

No amendment was made to clause 16.

Clause 17 was amended.

No amendments were made on clauses 18 to 20.

Clause 21: Ms Camerer (NP) asked why the provision cannot read "as soon as after". The law advisor explained that he had used the wording of the Interpretation Act. He further explained that even before the Bill gets promulgated in the Government Gazette the Minister or whoever has the power can act according to that provision. Ms Camerer then asked what about the situation of maladministration. To this the Chairperson responded that, according to the law advisor's explanation, a great reliance is placed on the Interpretation Act; also the Bill must not place an obligation on the Minister, it is better to leave the provision as it stands.
There was no feedback or rejection on the long title.