Proposed Children’s Amendment Bill: follow-up discussion

Social Development

24 May 2023
Chairperson: Ms N Mvana (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

The Portfolio Committee on Social Development met virtually to finalise discussions on the drafting of a Committee Bill on the Children’s Amendment Bill. When the Committee dealt with the Bill, it faced a court deadline and decided to reject some clauses to be later dealt with in a Committee Bill. Last week, the Committee received legal advice that due to the tim constraints as the sixth Parliament draws to a close, the Committee Bill might not be completed in time and Members needed to consider deferring the Bill to the seventh Parliament.

Some Members felt that the Committee should instruct the Department of Social Development (DSD) to begin the work on an Executive Bill to be introduced in the 7th Parliament. Others felt that adequate legal advice had been presented to the Committee and that the Committee Bill should instead be deferred to the 7th Parliament and cautioned that if this was not done, it might make the work the Committee had done thus far null and void.

The Committee resolved it would defer the Bill to the 7th Parliament as a Committee Bill.

Meeting report

The Chairperson made brief opening remarks and welcomed all present in the meeting.

Apologies were heard and the meeting agenda was adopted.

Proposed Children’s Amendment Bill: follow-up discussion

 

Mr D Stock (ANC) said the Children’s Amendment Bill was presented to the Committee in totality and the Committee took the decision to separate the Bill into two parts. The Committee was able to meet the court deadline. He said the Committee needed to appreciate the legal advice it was given. The process was a back to back arrangement. On the second part of the Bill and on the foster care clauses, the Committee used the word “reject”, but this did not mean it was rejecting the clauses. This was a technical word used to defer the clauses to be considered at a later stage. On public hearings, the Committee has always been clear that it would not disregard the views of different stakeholders. Given the advice from Adv van der Merwe [legal advisor] and a number of risks, the Committee would not be able to deal with the Bill. There were some highly contested issues such as the rights of the father and customary laws and the Committee has consulted the National House of Traditional leaders and this was a lengthy process. He proposed that the Bill be deferred as is to the 7th Parliament and that Committee should then take the process forward. He did not want to create the impression that the Committee did not want to do its work, but felt this was necessary given all the risks presented to the Committee. The Committee would not have ample time to proceed with the Bill as is due to time constraints.

Ms J Manganye (ANC) said she supported Mr Stock’s suggestion and the Committee should defer the 126 clauses to the next administration. This will assist them. The Committee also did not consult with Chiefs given African culture and the submissions made by Fathers for Justice. This will be done after addressing the court challenges.

Ms A Abrahams (DA) said that in future, when providing overviews and having discussions, this should come from Committee staff and not Members of Parliament as she disagreed with some things raised by Members. She proposed that the Committee instruct the Department to begin the work on the executive Bill to be introduced in the 7th Parliament. It was not included in the minutes that some Members of the Committee requested that a formal complaint be laid with the Chief Law Advisor and it was said the previous week that the Chairperson would not lay such a complaint. She said this could have been addressed the previous week and asked what the Committee was doing today given that it was now taking this position? Other committees were meeting two or three times a week and this Committee had such a lot of work to do. She felt that the Committee would go through clauses today, but this was wasting time. She would like the Committee to resolve that the Executive begin the Executive Bill.

Ms L Arries (EFF) said she wanted to bring this to the attention of the State Law Advisor. She was concerned that the other bills with the Committee would take the same direction as the sixth Parliament did not have sufficient time to pass any bill into law looking at the time left. She did not want a situation where the Committee goes through processes, but has no time. The advice received last week was that the Bill would start afresh with the 7th administration. The EFF felt that this was fruitless and wasteful expenditure and someone needed to be held accountable.

Ms K Bilankulu (ANC) said she agreed with all Members who spoke before her to defer the Bill given the time constraints.

Ms P Marais (EFF) said she was concerned that there would be implications for the Committee if the Bill is deferred to the 7th Parliament. It seemed Fathers for Justice had been struggling for years to get justice for their children. She wanted the legal team to look into this.

The Chairperson said she wanted to remind the Committee that it could not punish itself by saying this was wasteful expenditure. If the Bill is deferred to the Executive, it would not be wasteful expenditure as the Executive would also consider all that has been said by communities and this would be included in the second draft. She wanted to emphasise that the Committee did not receive the incorrect advice, but the Committee agreed to separate the bills into two phases, such as the Foster Care Bill. The Committee did not want to ask for an extension, but wanted to divide it into two phases. The Committee is still on track with this. The 7th Parliament will take over and consider all that has been said including the submissions by Fathers for Justice. Responding to Ms Abrahams’ comments, she that it was not a waste of time and the Committee did not have meetings on Fridays as some Members did not stay close by and had to travel. The Committee could revise to this if it feels it does not have enough time. The Chair of Chairs could be approached about this. The only reason for the meeting was to have a discussion on whether the Bill would be deferred.

Ms Abrahams said she was still confused as to what would be included in the minutes and what the final decision would be. She asked whether the Chairperson was saying the Bill would be deferred or was the Committee deferring the Bill with the instruction to the Department to proceed with an Executive Bill so that when the 7th Parliament begins, they can hit the ground running?

The Chairperson said asked Mr Stock to repeat his earlier proposal.

Mr Stock said he proposed that the Bill be deferred to the 7th Parliament. He was opposed to deferring the Bill to the Executive as the implication would be for the Executive to start the work afresh and all the work the Committee had done would be null and void. He said Ms Abrahams was trying to “throw a spanner in the works” and collapse the whole process and all the work the Committee had done. He was totally opposed to sending the Bill to the Executive. This would contradict the work the Committee had already done. He proposed that the second phase of the Bill be deferred to the 7th administration.

Ms Abrahams said some people may think this was throwing a spanner in the works, and she took exception to this as this was what the Committee had on its agenda as Committee deliberations to discuss and ventilate the matter. Legal experts were on the platform and the two proposals could be handed over to them to provide a legal opinion on both proposals. It was not right to completely dismiss a Member’s input when the legal team were present. She hoped this would be included in the minutes as a lot of things were missing from last week’s minutes.

The Chairperson said she may have miscommunicated what she meant. This was a Portfolio Committee Bill for now. The previous week she said the Committee should apply its mind on what was before it now. She did not see a need to get legal advice as the Legal Advisors have done their best in advising the Committee. She asked to be allowed to chair the meeting as she saw fit.

Ms A Hlongo (ANC) said she understood the Chairperson’s summary.

Ms Yolisa Khanye, Committee Content Advisor, wanted clarity on whether the Bill would be a Committee Bill or if it would be deferred to the Executive.

Ms Arries asked for clarity on whether the Bill would be deferred to the 7th Parliament as a Committee Bill?

The Chairperson said this was correct.

Consideration and adoption of minutes

Minutes of 8 March 2023

The Committee Secretary took the Committee through the minutes.

The minutes were adopted without amendment.

Minutes of 15 March 2023

The minutes were adopted without amendment.

Minutes of 3 May 2023

The minutes were adopted without amendment.

Ms Abrahams asked what happened to the minutes of 5 and 10 May 2023?

The Committee Secretary said she lost some files, but had the minutes of 5 May 2023.

Ms Bilankulu said the minutes should be deferred to the next meeting as some things were not well captured.

The Committee agreed to defer the adoption of minutes for 5,10  and 17 May 2023 to its next meeting.

The Chairperson made brief closing remarks and thanked all present in the meeting.

Meeting adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: