CRITIQUE OF THE RESPONSE OF THE UDM TO THE PENULTIMATE REPOR OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON HOME AFFAIRS ON THE WHITE PAPER ON INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

20-10-00, Cape Town

1. INTRODUCTION
We thank the United Democratic Movement for taking the trouble to respond to the Penultimate Report.

2. BRIEF CRITIQUE
On account of the brevity of the UDM's response as proposed (although unsigned) by the Hon. Annelize van Wyk (MP), our response will also be laconic.

2.1. It must be stated right at the outset that, though the UDM is active on the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, from its response, on this subject it is superficial. The UDM has not grasped the issues. This may be partly due to their inability to having attended fully the Public Hearings. This has deprived them of knack to develop a holistic prospective of the While Paper Process.
2.2. The UDM takes for granted the "right of the Portfolio Committee to conduct Public Hearings." (UDM Document). What the UDM fails to grasp is that RIGHT is actually being challenged by the Minister because he has ALREADY CONDUCTED PUBLIC HEARINGS! In his opinion we are merely duplicating and delaying. All we should do is to accept the White Paper and read it together with the BILL.
2.3. The proposed 20 principles are meant to set the foundation for a new White Paper. It is therefore, incorrect for the UDM to acknowledge that "as much as '11' of those principles are already in-cooperated in the White Paper and the Bill" (P.2 UDM Document).
2 4 By the above-mentioned statement, the UDM actually condones the fact that it is alright for the Bill to drafted EVEN BEFORE a report by the Portfolio Committee on Public Hearings is presented. This is a crucial FLAW! as the Bill should be INFORMED BY OUR REPORT!
2.5. The matter of the views of the Portfolio Committee was clarified when the Penultimate Report was released on 5-10-00.
2.6. Briefing of the Portfolio Committee on 03-10-00 is appropriately captured it because it exposes the SHIFT in the White Paper.

3. EPILOGUE
3.1. We thank the UDM for their views and note them.
3.2. We urge the UDM to acquaint themselves with the issues at hand.
3.3. The issue of Minister and chairperson is immaterial to the situation. What is at stake is democracy, Parliamentary protocol regardless of who the Minister or chairperson is i.e., the Constitutional separation of powers that must be respected.
3.4. The urgency of having a migration law is accepted. However, what is important are the principles on which such a law is bottomed. Otherwise, Home Affairs will always be played by endless litigation that will not augure well for good governance. Our task as a Portfolio Committee is to exercise oversight in under to foresee the pitfalls arid thus help both the Minister and Government. We should avoid the temptation of merely cruising or bobbling along. MP's must be vigilant and not be land-bank. We must defend the gains of the democracy for which people fought so hard. NO MP worth his or her salt cannot countenance the crosion of democracy, absence of transparency and accountability.