The much-delayed and controversial Immigration Bill was finally approved in the National Assembly on Friday, albeit with Home Affairs Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi severely criticising certain last-minute amendments brought by the ANC.
The bill has been the subject of more than four years of political wrangling and controversial changes.
The final draft differs markedly from what Buthelezi and his department originally proposed.
Introducing debate on the bill, he nonetheless pledged to carry out the will of government and accepted the measure.
”If I withdraw the bill at this stage, as my instinct says, we could not meet the Constitutional Court deadline (June 2).
”This has placed me in a situation where I am presenting and piloting a bill of this Parliament as my bill, but it is the bill as amended by the majority party (ANC), with its warts and all.
”It is this legislature which will be answerable should there be problems in the areas I have pointed out,” Buthelezi said.
The original bill Cabinet had placed before Parliament ”was what I felt to be the best way to respond to present needs and future challenges”.
”I cannot help but read the response that Parliament gave to Cabinet proposals as a process gone astray, in which the desire to assert the political primacy of the ruling party overrode reason and careful considerations of issues.”
Buthelezi said he was acting not in his capacity as leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party, but as a minister of state, and ”as long as I remain a minister of state, I shall faithfully execute any legislation this Parliament may wish to adopt”.
”I am a democrat and bow to the will of the elected representatives.”
His problems with the bill included provisions dealing with determining the country’s skills needs, creating categories and quotas, work permits, procedures for permits, law enforcement and border control, and corporate permits.
Among other things, the department would have to develop large additional administrative capacity for carrying out new functions, and would need much bigger budget allocations.
”It is unusual for a minister to do so, but it would be remiss of me not to place this on record that there are technical problems with the bill, which I hope will be corrected before its enactment,” he said.
On the positive side, the bill was an enormous improvement on the current uncertainty and levels of discretion.
It contained innovative solutions which placed South Africa ahead of many other countries that were struggling with issues of migration.
The bill also brought immigration control into compliance with the highest standards of human rights protection, including administrative and judicial review, and the establishment of Immigration Courts.
In these, and many other respects, it represented a monumental step ahead, and set South Africa on a much stronger footing to cope with the issues of immigration control, which was bound to increase in future, Buthelezi said.
National Assembly home affairs committee chairman Mpho Scott, of the ANC, said the bill did not necessarily meet all the expectations of all parties, but was a ”product we can all live with”.
Passing the bill was not an end in itself, and it would have to be reviewed from time to time to see if it was doing what it had been intended to do.
Scott rejected contentions that ”wholesale” changes had been made to the bill.
Mannetjies Grobler of the Democratic Alliance said despite its flaws, the bill was a step forward and the DA reluctantly supported it.
”This bill is not a perfect bill. I am sure amendments will be brought to this House in the future.
”The ANC in this whole process seem to have ridden roughshod over Minister Buthelezi and his department’s proposed views concerning a proper Immigration Bill.
”As we tried to progress on the deliberation of this bill, there was no doubt that the ANC had only one goal in mind, that of redrafting the Immigration Bill at any cost and without any rhyme or reason.
”Its concern was that the Immigration Bill formulated by Minister Buthelezi’s department should not be passed,” Grobler said.
The IFP’s Prince Nhlahla Zulu said his party supported the bill, but with strong reservations, as the original draft would have been much better.
Annelise van Wyk of the United Democratic Movement also supported the bill, but said the UDM believed it would be back in Parliament for amendment sooner rather than later.
The New National Party’s Sakkie Pretorius also spoke in favour of the measure.
Only the African Christian Democratic Party voted against the bill, mainly because it extended the definition of the word ”spouse” to include a party in a permanent heterosexual or homosexual relationship.
The bill now goes to the National Council of Provinces for concurrence. – Sapa