Judicial Matters Amendment Bill: briefing

Meeting report

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
25 October 2001
JUDICIAL MATTERS AMENDMENT BILL: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr JL Mahlangu

Documents handed out:
Judicial Matters Amendment Bill
Judicial Matters Amendment Bill amended version

SUMMARY
The Department of Justice briefed the Committee on the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill which seeks to amend a number of Acts, some dating back to 1929. The Portfolio Committee on Justice has approved the Bill and now it was being presented to the Select Committee for debate and discussion.

The Interception and Monitoring Bill and the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill, which were to be discussed at this briefing, were withdrawn as they were being redrafted by the Portfolio Committee on Justice. This redrafting meant that this legislation would be carried over into the next year.

Judicial Matters Amendment Bill
Members were unsure of the rationale behind the legislation that was being proposed. It was agreed that Committee Members needed to be given the context behind the legislation before such a briefing. The Justice Department representatives said that there was a document to explain the context behind the proposed legislation and it would be made available to Members.

Discussion
Mr Lever (DP) commented that there seemed little point of amending legislation that had "not seen the light of day yet". Many Members did not understand the laws they were supposed to be passing, and therefore what chance did the ordinary citizens have of understanding these laws? He suggested that the system be reviewed to ensure that legislation that will never see the light of day does not get continuously repealed and amended by various committees.

The Justice Department representatives agreed that the implementation of legislation was a problem.

Mr Lever said it was pointless for Committees to regularly pass legislation that is never used and then is bought back to the Committees three or four years later.

It was again acknowledged that there was a problem with the implementation of legislation.

Mr Lever stated unequivocally that there needed to be a system in place to ensure that citizens and Departmental officials understood the laws that were being passed. He continued saying that the current situation was untenable as the people of the country would no longer understand how the laws effected their lives.

The Justice Department said that they agreed in part with what Mr Lever was saying. However, the responsibility for making ordinary citizens understand the laws did not lie solely with the Justice Department. It was also the responsibility of Parliament and its Members.

Mr Lever then referred to Clauses 20, 22 and 23, which related to the process for accessing information in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act. In particular, he referred to Clause 23 and asked what the ramifications of substituting the word "required" with "requested" were?

The response was that this amendment did not have any direct legal ramifications. This was merely an amendment to the heading of the clause and thus did not effect the clause itself.

The Chairperson commented that many of the amendments were very technical. He also reiterated the suggestion that Committee Members be given the background and rationale behind the legislation before a briefing of this nature. At the next meeting the Committee would vote on the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.