The huge impact HIV/AIDS will have on the economy in general and the loss of skilled people in particular has been ignored.

It is unfortunate that this crucial piece of legislation has been turned into a political football. In fact the Portfolio Committee has become a political mudslinging exercise.

To the knowledge of the DA, the ten stages identified in the report are not stages of the legislative process as defined in the Constitution and do not reflect any established or accepted constitutional and legislative practice. There are no requirements stipulated in the constitution to which "the ten significant stages in the legislative process" (as stipulated in the document) must adhere.

In fact many departments (inducing those run by the ANC) have adopted legislation without white papers, while in other cases the green paper stage was skipped. Some deal with the white paper and the bill simultaneously. In most cases, the white paper has been accompanied by a draft Bill or even a Bill already tabled before Parliament. This has been the case for legislation ranging from refugees to local government, police, defence, land affairs, water affairs and culture. ln fact, one is hard pressed to think of a single example in the new dispensation which has followed exactly the stages that the report suggests is part of the legislative process.

The DA agrees with the statement in the report that "the Portfolio Committee has the responsibility of supervising the activities of the Department, including its processes of policy formulation and legislative drafting". However, the responsibility has to be taken seriously. To wait 14 months before starting public hearings on the White paper is a dereliction of duty. What the portfolio committee did from March 1999 until December 1999 is a mystery. This important piece of legislation should have taken priority on the portfolio committee's agenda. The DA realises that the current chairperson of the portfolio committee, Mr Aubrey Mokoena, was appointed February 2000, which clearly indicates that the previous chairperson had failed to execute his responsibilities. It is now 19 months since the white paper saw the light of day and the committee still has not completed its report.

The DA is also under the clear impression that public hearings organised by the department on the white paper did indeed take place, and in fact happened on the insistence of ANC MP Winnie Mandela.

The DA has no major objections to the 20 proposed principles; 11 of which are in fact already incorporated in the white paper.

On page 85 of the report the heading "The views of the portfolio committee on the White Paper" should in fact read "The views of the ANC on the White Paper". The Chairperson clearly stated in the portfolio committee that the views were in fact that of the ANC. The DA does not wish to become involved in the mudslinging of the Portfolio Committee Chairperson and the department. We believe that the issue of immigration is of such importance that one can not take one's eye off the ball in order to score political points.

Pages 88 to 91 deal with the remarks made by Minister M G Buthelezi, Dr O Ambrosini and the Deputy Director Mr I Lambinon. On pages 92 and 93 the committee gives its critique of the remarks made by the three gentlemen. The DA points out that these remarks are yet again the views of the ANC and not those of other opposition parties. The DA rejects out of hand the comments about Dr Ambrosini concerning points three and five in particular which we find insulting. These useless comments only serve to divide the committee further

It is also misleading to state that the Committee "still has not received a proper briefing on the White Paper by the Department" when in fact the Department given two presentations and submitted three documents.

In conclusion the DA proposes the following:

As public representatives we are expected to represent the voters of South Africa in a dignified, mature and responsible manner. The voters wait.

ENDS