Hon Deputy Speaker, Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, colleagues, hon members and the Home Affairs team, the democratic South African state has an unwavering and steadfast commitment to the protection of refugees as described in international conventions and protocols, as well as in our own laws. Indeed, our democracy is defined by respect for human rights and the protection of the vulnerable.
The Refugees Amendment Bill before you is therefore intended to streamline the process of application for asylum by making it more efficient, easy and credible for those who seek our protection. We should not subject those genuinely seeking asylum to long, protracted processes. At the same time, we would like to be firm and very strict with those who are abusing the asylum system, knowing very well that they are not refugees.
In terms of the current legislation, the Refugee Status Determination Officer, the person who determines whether a person qualifies as a refugee or not, is a very junior person who takes that decision alone. This is a very big decision to be taken by one person, who is also very junior. This contributes to inefficiencies and sometimes corruption.
We are therefore proposing that this be done by committees which will decide on the status of the applications. Members of these committees will have different expertise to adjudicate such matters; for example, they might have knowledge of international relations, politics and current affairs. They will make these decisions as a collective, and efficiently, and restore the integrity of our process.
An application for asylum can have one of three possible outcomes: acceptance, rejection as manifestly unfounded, or rejection as unfounded. South Africa adheres to internationally accepted reasons for granting asylum status. Please indulge me as I explain what these are.
The first is when a person has a well-founded fear of being persecuted by reason of his or her race, gender, tribe, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, or, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his or her former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return.
The second is when there is external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or other events seriously disturbing public order in either a part or the whole of his or her country of origin or nationality, and he or she is compelled to leave his or her place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his or her country of origin or nationality. The third is when the person is a spouse or dependant of a person contemplated in points one or two.
If the reasons for an application are outside the aforementioned parameters, an application is considered manifestly unfounded and according to the proposed amendments will be reviewed by the director-general, and if the director-general is in agreement, then that person will be deported.
If the applicant uses the aforementioned reasons, but during the interview it becomes very clear that he or she is not telling the truth, such an application is declared unfounded and the applicant has the right to appeal.
As things stand, an appeal process takes years to finalise. Therefore, we are amending this and proposing an Appeals Authority that can meet simultaneously in groups at different centres to consider applications, which will go a long way towards expediting the process. The implementation of such proposals will cut short the waiting period and it will be easy to reconcile the findings of the Status Determination Committee and what the director-general has done, as well as the appeals.
If the appeal is unsuccessful, obviously the person will go back to his own country. If the application is successful, then the person stays in South Africa until such time as the reasons that made him leave his country are over. We are also making an amendment, and proposing that a child born of an asylum-seeker should be registered in terms of the Births and Deaths Registration Act in South Africa. The certificate should be submitted to the refugee centre so that that child can be recorded as a dependant of that refugee.
Finally, the amendment will also ensure that refuge status granted erroneously by the Status Determination Committee either in good faith or in bad faith can be reviewed.
Hon Deputy Speaker, with this having passed through the various stages of deliberation in the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, we now hope that members of this House will vote in favour of the proposed amendments. The favourable approval of the members of the House will indeed ensure that South Africa upholds its commitment to human rights, as well as its international obligations.
I would like to conclude by expressing my appreciation to the chair of the portfolio committee, Mrs Maggy Maunye, as well as other members of the portfolio committee for their tireless efforts in working on the amending Bill to ensure that it will maintain South Africa's reputation as a champion of human rights, as well as the dignity of those who seek refuge and safety upon our shores. I thank you.
Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon Deputy Ministers and hon members, being part of the global village and enjoying a relatively stable democracy and economy, South Africa is not unaffected by people's movement. This movement has in the main been, and continues to be, from poorer countries into developing areas and into what are perceived to be rich countries. Among the people migrating are those who are refugees and asylumseekers running away from conflicts and persecution.
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees a person who has fled his or her country of origin the right to be recognised as a refugee in any United Nations, UN, member state, South Africa not excluded. The African Charter of Human and People's Rights provides for the same. Pursuant to the aforegoing obligations, our Constitution guarantees refugees enjoyment of all human rights, with the exception of the right to vote.
According to the principal Act, and not changed by the Bill, a person qualifies for refugee status if he or she -
owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted by reason of his or her race, tribe, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, or, ... owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it ... According to the 1969 Organisation of African Unity, OAU, Convention, a refugee can also be a person who has left his home -
owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality ...
Chairperson, the main objectives of the amending Bill are: to improve the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of the status determination system; to seek to correct the technical error contained in the Refugees Amendment Act, Act 33 of 2008; to make provision for the establishment of the Status Determination Committee which introduces a collective approach to decision- making; to further make provision for the establishment of the Refugee Appeals Authority; to make provision for the registration of a child born of an asylum seeker in terms of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, Act 51 of 1992; and to provide that any asylumseeker or refugee must, after registration of a child born in the Republic, submit the certificate issued in terms of the Births and Deaths Registration Act at any refugee reception office, in order to have the said child included as a dependant of such an asylum-seeker or refugee.
The function that was vested in the director-general to certify that a person will remain a refugee indefinitely now vests with the Minister. The function to withdraw the refugee status is with the Minister. Every Appeals Authority has to comply with public policy ensuring justice, fairness and reasonableness. The principles ensure the protection of inherent human dignity and equality. In order for every appellant to enjoy the right to a fair hearing and unprejudiced adjudication, the composition of the Appeals Authority is to have a form suitable for purpose. It is reasonable, therefore, to limit the risk of any factor that could diminish the justice, fairness and reasonableness of the decision.
In some Western countries there has been a notable tendency for political parties to use refugee issues as rallying points in their campaigns. Needless to say, some of these parties have exploited repressed conservative and xenophobic feelings, resulting in the tacit, and at times express, undermining of the obligation that countries have to asylum seekers.
Political affiliation has the potential to affect the quality of decisions of the Refugee Appeals Authority by the extent to which it differs according to the amount of political power a member holds. Therefore, clause 4 of the Refugees Amendment Bill lessens the burden imposed by section 8(e) of the Refugees Amendment Act, Act 33 of 2008. Whereas the Refugees Amendment Act provides for a total exclusion of persons from membership of the Refugee Appeals Authority, the Bill qualifies the condition of exclusion.
We deem it reasonable, and we would like to commend the House for its support, that those political office bearers who hold a position in the national executive structure of any political party be excluded from membership of the Refugee Appeals Authority.
Our concept of an asylumseeker, as per our jurisdiction, is anyone who has fled his or her country of origin and seeks recognition as a refugee in the Republic of South Africa, and whose application is still under consideration, whereas a refugee is one who holds and enjoys asylum status. This material difference is most significant when we recognise the abiding fact that seeking asylum does not guarantee its granting. However, section 28(2) of the Constitution states:
A child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.
Section 36 limits the rights in the Bill of Rights, including the right to a nationality and citizenship; however, it does so when it is reasonable and justifiable to do so. It is, in our view, in the interests of an asylum seeker's child to be duly registered as such. Registration will facilitate access to appropriate state support wherever possible and according to statutory regulations thereto.
We therefore solicit your support, hon members, in extending section 21B to provide for the registration of a child born of an asylum seeker within one month of its birth in terms of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, Act 51 of 1992. The parents of such a child have an obligation to submit the certificate issued in terms of the Act to any refugee reception officer so that such a child is duly included as a dependant of such an asylum-seeker or refugee.
It is not unreasonable to expect an adult person to have dependants; however, it would be unrealistic not to limit registration of dependants to a defined category. Even those who seek asylum are not immune to economic pressure that could lead them to bring strangers into the country under the guise of dependency. In order to establish the bona fides of any refugee or asylumseeker's intention, it is only fair that it be assumed that one's knowledge of one's own dependants precedes one's application for asylum. In other words, when a person decides to apply for asylum, that person should reasonably be deemed to possess adequate knowledge of who his or her dependants are.
In this regard the definition for dependants covers an unmarried child or destitute, aged or infirm member of the immediate family of an asylumseeker or refugee who is financially dependent on him or her. However, it would be unfair for children that arrive after the principal applicant has been in the country not to have been declared in the eligibility form when the principal applicant applied for asylum.
May I remind hon members that section 2 of the Constitution states:
This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic;...
Ke a leboha Modulasetulo. [Thank you, Chairperson.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, there is one change to the Refugees Act which we do welcome, albeit with some qualification. Asylum seekers are currently interviewed by one person, the Refugee Status Determination Officer. The system is not only open to corruption; it has been riddled with extremely poor decision-making. The Bill now proposes that the Status Determination Committee will interview applicants and make decisions on granting asylum or otherwise. The system should indeed be fairer to asylumseekers and should result in decisions that are not, as is currently the case, the target of litigation based on infringement of the human rights of asylumseekers.
The 2009 Wits University study provides the following alarming statistics on asylum-seeker applications: Eighty-five per cent of asylumseekers were unhappy with the interpretation service provided; 49% had not understood the reason for the interview; and 22% of applicants reported hostility during their interviews, with questions such as the following being asked: "What's wrong with you people? Why don't you go somewhere else?" The study also found that Refugee Status Determination Officers regularly ignored information and claims, included their own speculation and decisions, made mistakes of fact with respect to country information, and made excessive use of cut-and-paste decisions. Now committees which comprise individuals without skill, understanding or expertise cannot perform more effectively than those individuals. So, properly equipping her officials is an issue that the Minister must address.
This Bill cannot be seen in isolation; it must be read together with the Refugees Amendment Act of 2008, which will come into force concurrently with this Bill. This Bill will, in fact, supplement provisions of the 2008 Act.
A standing committee is currently in place to provide independent oversight of the operations of refugee reception centres. An independent, efficient and competent review of applications which are found to be manifestly unfounded would then mean that the asylumseeker could be illegal and face deportation. The 2008 Act scraps the standing committee entirely. It requires the director-general to review all such applications. The decision of the director-general is final - no right of appeal exists.
The department has stated that asylumseekers have the right to seek judicial review of decisions, and that this section is therefore not in conflict with the principles of natural justice. We disagree. In 2009 alone, 20 High Court cases, brought by Lawyers for Human Rights, secured the release of over 5 000 non-nationals. Their detention was based primarily on poor decision-making by departmental officials. Why are we now accepting new law that will simply increase the potential for costly litigation against the department, based on human rights infringements?
We know that the standing committee's functioning has been far from optimal. However this can and must be corrected. What the amendment achieves is actually to remove any semblance of independent oversight of the operations at refugee reception centres.
A refugee can only apply for permanent residence if he or she has lived in the country for an uninterrupted period of five years after having been declared an indefinite refugee by the Minister. Currently, being declared an indefinite refugee is taking up to nine years. So refugees will have to be in this country for up to 14 years before being allowed to even apply for permanent residence, all the while living with the threat of the Minister lifting their refugee status.
The DA agrees with the many submissions demanding that the period of residence required to apply for permanent residence should be calculated from the time the refugee first applied for asylum seeker status. It should not be from the time the indefinite refugee status is granted. This Bill must also be considered in parallel with the Immigration Amendment Bill, which is currently before Parliament. The Immigration Amendment Bill includes the prescreening of asylumseekers at border posts. This appears to be contradictory to the provisions of the Bill before us today. It is certainly contradictory to the requirements of the Refugees Act, and to the United Nations Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees to which we are a signatory.
There was talk during deliberations on the Immigration Amendment Bill of rejecting asylumseekers on the basis that South Africa is not the first safe country they have reached. There is no Southern African Development Community, SADC, and African Union, AU, agreement on this. It is contrary to the Refugees Act and to the United Nations Convention.
The Immigration Amendment Bill requires an asylumseeker to travel from a port of entry to the nearest refugee reception office.
Chairperson, on point of order: The member is describing the Immigration Amendment Bill. We are talking about the Refugees Amendment Bill. What she is talking about is still with the portfolio committee; it is not here yet. Thank you.
Hon member, continue. Order! Order, please!
Chairperson, the implication of "the nearest reception office" is that there need not be offices any distance from a port of entry. The Refugees Act requires that there must be as many offices as are necessary. The two pieces of legislation are contradictory, to the extreme detriment of genuine asylumseekers. The Minister must engage with her legal advisors to harmonise her legislation.
The Bill does not further the aims pointed out by the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants during his recent visit to South Africa earlier this year. He noted that we do not have a migration policy in place, and that we need to respect the rights of migrants without discrimination. The DA cannot support this Bill. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Motlatsi wa Sepikara, maloko a hlomphehileng a Palamente ... [Deputy Speaker, hon members of Parliament ...]
... South Africa receives the largest number of asylum requests in the world. Well over 400 000 individual asylum claims have been received since 2008. On top of these are applications by migrant workers seeking to regularise their stay and access the employment market. Most of these applicants settle in urban areas. This fuels xenophobia as they compete with host communities for scarce jobs.
While Cope has certain reservations, our party welcomes the Refugees Amendment Bill. We do so because it seeks to clarify all aspects relating to refugees and asylum-seekers who seek a safe haven in South Africa. Inasmuch as our country must provide for its own citizens, it must also address the plight of refugees and effectively provide for their safety, health and general wellbeing.
One of the shortcomings of the Bill is the tight time frames that are demanded. We find it quite unrealistic to require a child born in South Africa of refugee parents to be registered within a month in terms of the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992. It is common cause that Home Affairs does not at present have the capacity to meet its own deadlines. On top of this, many refugees and asylumseekers are themselves unregistered. They may therefore not get the administrative assistance and support they need. Failure to register a child's birth within the period stipulated in the Bill should not deprive such a child of the right all children are accorded at birth. Children born in South Africa, whether of refugee or South African parents, should have access to the same rights.
There is another administrative problem that will arise after this Bill has become law. There are times when unaccompanied children enter South Africa. The department will have to ensure that they are attended to in a sensitive and professional manner. Training of staff will be of fundamental importance in addressing this issue. The department will also have to make a careful choice of its Refugee Status Determination Officers and provide them with thorough training.
Of some concern to us is also the power granted to the director-general in dealing with manifestly unfounded cases. The guidelines for use by the proposed Status Determination Committee, SDC, which will determine whether refugees are granted status or not, must be made clear at the very beginning. It must not be forgotten that the aim of the SDC is to improve the process of determining status, and this must be reflected in its work.
The department should also be mindful of the political situation and the court system in the refugees' country of origin in processing an application. There is often no security for refugees during the time they are awaiting their legal documentation. The department should take cognisance of this. Administrative delays often subvert justice.
Cope is also emphatic about the department's encouraging the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR, in its role of interacting with refugees directly. The department and the UNHCR should seek to work in an integrated and co-operative manner. Matters regarding refugees are not only the concern of the Department of Home Affairs, but of other departments as well. Cope will support the Bill. I thank you, Chairperson. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Chairperson, it is common knowledge that, in the period between 2007 and 2009, South Africa registered the highest number of new asylum-seekers in the world. The vast majority of these applications for asylum came from Zimbabwean nationals.
While some of the clauses in the Refugees Amendment Bill are mainly of a technical nature, they are still needed in order to regularise the process of refugee registration in this country, especially in the light of our high refugee asylum status.
Our processes and refugee officers must therefore be of the highest possible standard in order to ensure that refugees in this country are dealt with in accordance with methods of current international best practice. South Africa is currently home to scores of refugees and asylumseekers, all of whom must be fed, housed and provided with education, health care and work.
We have an extremely high unemployment rate and an economy that has not yet fully recovered from the global recession of 2009-10. The question is whether we are capable of providing safe and sustainable refuge for this number of refugees.
Other issues of concern are the capability of the Department of Home Affairs to actually deal with the very complex nature of border issues and the current level of competence of the department's refugee officers in handling complex international legal issues. Nevertheless, the Bill is a step in the right direction and the IFP will support it. Thank you. [Applause.]
Agb Voorsitter, die agb Minister sowel as die kollega van die DA het verwys na die statusbepalende beamptes by die vlugtelingsentrums, en albei het genoem dat hulle baie junior mense is.
Ek het die voorreg gehad om verlede jaar 'n besoek af te l by die Marabastadsentrum en te sien hoe die bepaling daar gedoen word. Ek kan u verseker dat daardie amptenare dit baie ernstig opneem en nie ligtelik daarmee omgaan nie. Hulle doen werklik hul werk en doen dit op 'n korrekte manier.
Die feit van die saak is dat ons met 'n abnormale situasie in Suid-Afrika sit, waar ons meer asielsoekers het wat in hierdie land instroom as op enige ander plek op aarde. Die feit van die saak is dat verreweg die oorgrote meerderheid van daardie asielsoekers nie werklike asielsoekers is nie, maar mense wat hierheen wil kom vir 'n beter lewe.
Die staat se eerste verpligting is teenoor sy eie burgers. Daar moet maatrels getref word om ons eie burgers te beskerm, alhoewel ons ook internasionale verpligtinge moet nakom in daardie verband. Ek weet nie of dit werklik prakties gaan wees om dit nou te skuif na 'n komitee toe nie. Daardie beamptes werk hulself tans oor 'n mik om elke dag die volume te kan hanteer. Om dit na 'n komitee toe te skuif, gaan 'n praktiese probleem wees.
Om 'n appl na die direkteur-generaal toe deur te stuur, gaan ook 'n probleem wees. Die direkteur-generaal gaan basies niks anders kan doen as om dag en nag hierdie applle te hanteer nie. Ek dink dit is ondeurdag. Daar moet weer gekyk word na hoe prakties dit is. Ons kan dit nie op hierdie basis hanteer nie. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Hon Chairperson, both the hon Minister, as well as the colleague from the DA referred to the officials in charge of status determination at the refugee centres, and both mentioned that they are very junior people.
Last year I had the privilege to pay a visit to the Marabastad centre and to see how the determination is done there. I can assure you that those officials are taking it very seriously and are not dealing with it frivolously. They really do their work and do it in a proper manner.
The fact of the matter is that we are saddled with an abnormal situation in South Africa, where we have a greater influx of asylumseekers into this country than any other place on earth. The fact of the matter is that by far the majority of those asylumseekers are not actually asylumseekers, but people who want to come here for a better life.
The state's first duty is to its own citizens. Measures should be taken to protect our own citizens although, on that score, we also have to honour international commitments. I do not know whether it will really, at this time, be practical to move this responsibility to a committee. As it is, at present those officials are working themselves to a standstill to be able to manage the volume of work each day. To move this responsibility to a committee is going to be a practical problem.
To lodge an appeal through to the director-general is also going to be a problem. Basically the director-general would not be able to do anything else except deal with these appeals day and night. I think this move has been ill-considered. It has to be considered again as to how practical it is. We shouldn't manage this process in this manner. Thank you.]
Chairperson, in the ANC we know and understand what it is like to be a refugee and an asylumseeker, because so many of us have been in similar situations in many countries of the world. We know what it is like to run away from your country of birth because of circumstances that are not of your own making. We know what it feels like to sleep in an open field because you are in an unknown land with no host. We know how terrible it is to sleep on an empty stomach, or worse, to eat anything, including rats and snakes, because you have no food in the foreign land that you find yourself in. We know how terrible it feels, wondering whether you will ever see your family, friends and loved ones again.
Chairperson, the life that refugees and asylum seekers live when they are not accorded refugee status by their host country is an unenviable life of desperation. This is the life that many of the members of the ANC and other liberation movements lived when they were forced out of the country by the barbaric apartheid laws.
That is why we will support the Refugees Amendment Bill. It simplifies the process of applying for refugee status in South Africa and treats applicants with the dignity that they deserve. We have to do this because the character of a nation is defined by how it treats people who are in desperate situations and who come to the country in order to seek asylum, a safe haven and a better life.
When we entered these countries after running away from the apartheid forces, the majority of us did not have valid documents, or perhaps had no documents at all. These nations could have sent us back to South Africa to face the hell of apartheid. The majority did not, although some did. Those who did not, did so because they understood our predicament. They knew that we were people who had not been treated humanely by the apartheid state. Treating anyone inhumanely is not something which we should do. As we debate this Refugees Amendment Bill, what we should perhaps do is remember this history and those countries' reputation for generosity and sharing what they had versus a government that was obsessed with narrow, national self-interest.
We know that how we treat refugees or asylumseekers sometimes determines their lives or deaths. If we send them back, they sometimes go to prison or end up being tortured, beaten or enduring starvation. In many ways, we have to be very cautious and thorough but, above all, we have to be humane.
As a principle of fast and fair refugee determination, what we want to see are high quality initial decisions. Get it right the first time. If we don't, we will leave the doors open for those crooks who always take advantage of the plight of these desperate people by robbing them.
We have heard of individuals coercing desperate people from Zimbabwe to pay them so that they can facilitate their entry into South Africa. We have heard and read of corrupt officials and syndicates giving immigrants IDs and documents in return for payment. These are actions that we must stop.
In the process of doing this we must ensure that we keep it nonarbitrary and have an independent body that makes all decisions. We have to make these laws simple and not have unnecessary rules or complicated processes. We should also make sure that we have the necessary resources in place so that we can avoid backlogs. We should always remember that human lives are at stake and that we should adhere to human rights standards.
As the ANC we believe that the proposed status determination committee, as opposed to the Status Determination Officer, will lead to the process being fair and fast. There will be no arbitrariness, subjectivity and bias. This will also do away with possible corruption and bribery that the Status Determination Officer could be susceptible to. To bribe the entire committee is improbable.
As such, I would like to advise the Minister to treat the establishment of this committee as a matter of utmost urgency while the Refugees Amendment Bill comes into operation. The number of refugees waiting to hear their fate grows larger by the day. This will certainly lead to backlogs, and if there is a backlog the Minister will have to hire more staff, or else the principle of fast and fair determination will be compromised. Speed is good, especially when you are a refugee status applicant.
The substitution of the Minister for the director-general in some parts of the Act, such as in sections 27 and 36, is welcomed. This is in recognition and appreciation of the fact that the determination of refugee status is not only an administrative act. There are other factors, some which are political in nature, which must also be taken into account.
The other merits of the Bill must also be applauded, especially the one concerning the due process of the law. Examples of these are that asylumseekers whose applications are rejected as manifestly unfounded, abusive or fraudulent in terms of section 24(3)(b) will not need to apply for an appeal in terms of section 24B. The application will automatically be reviewed by the director-general in terms of section 24A. Furthermore, any asylumseeker whose application has been rejected in terms of section 24(3)(b) and (c) may lodge an appeal with the Refugee Appeals Authority.
In contrast, we must provide legal aid in order to ensure proper representation. Refugees often arrive in South Africa penniless and have to face the Appeals Authority all by themselves, while having no clue about the South African legal system. This can be a harrowing experience. We must provide legal aid to some of the most desperate people - at least during the appeal stage - whether they are Europeans, Asians or Africans.
I know that this has cost implications for the state, but, as I said earlier, sometimes this is a matter of life and death. If we have to spend in order to save lives, so be it.
Having commended this Refugees Amendment Bill, I do have one concern that I must raise with the Minister. Hon Minister, my only worry with regard to this amending Bill is that it does not correct the reference to the Aliens Control Act in the definition part of the principal Act. I am not sure whether it is just an oversight on the part of the drafters or not, but what this means is that when one reads the definition of the Act after this amendment, the reference to the Aliens Control Act will still appear and this is inconsistent. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Chair, humanity, a spirit of ubuntu and the history of our nation demand that we pay real attention to the issue of people seeking refuge or asylum on our shores. We applaud the Department of Home Affairs for their continued attention to the matter and this Bill is a testimony to that.
However, we would like to point out that refugees are not the responsibility or concern only of Home Affairs. It is time that we see an integrated service delivery vehicle that includes the departments of Health, Education, Social Development, and Justice and Constitutional Development.
Sir, 2009 saw us getting 18 700 unaccompanied minors and it is disappointing that this Bill does not directly cater for this problem and all the technicalities related to it.
South Africa is reported to be the largest asylum destination in the world, but how are we making sure that the people that seek refuge on our shores do receive such refuge? I ask this because we had expected that this Bill would deal more effectively with the real issues, like the provision of safety, health, education and general wellbeing. Disappointingly, this has not come out strongly. The UCDP supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, in contextualising my input I would like to argue that globalisation has created new realities and challenges at the international level. It has created greater movements of goods and people with different circumstances and interests. Some of the movements of people are motivated by the development of their business interests, and others are fleeing away from conditions that militate against their interests.
South Africa is part of this dynamic world and signatory to various international legal instruments with principles and standards relating to refugees, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and UN and OAU conventions and protocols relating to the status of refugees. That puts an obligation on it to assist other countries and people in need within its capacity. That is the context of the Bill.
At its 2007 national conference, the ANC noted the increasing challenge of refugees, which calls for better management and control. It recommended that our legislation should be revised to allow for stringent screening processes to prevent law fugitives from other countries from entering the country as refugees. In the context we noted that the principal Act has loopholes which could lead to a problem, not only for the Department of Home Affairs, but for South Africa in general.
In the Bill clause 8 amends section 24B of the principal Act in order to separate applications that are rejected as manifestly unfounded, abusive or fraudulent from being dealt with by the same procedure as applications rejected as unfounded applications. The effect of this amendment will be the same as that of an applicant whose application has been rejected as manifestly unfounded, abusive or fraudulent, and who cannot lodge an appeal to the Refugee Appeals Authority. Such a rejection will be reviewed by the director-general.
The same clause, as at provision 2.8.2, deletes subsection 3(a), which provides that the Refugee Appeals Authority may invite the UN High Commission or a refugee's representative to make oral or written representations before the Refugee Appeals Authority makes a decision.
Chairperson, these amendments seek to broadly manage the movements of people. We must also be honest and acknowledge that people have been taking advantage of the open-handedness of South Africa's refugee application system, because the principal Act stated that everyone had to be allowed a fair chance to state their case for being granted refugee status. Some people present themselves as asylumseekers whilst they are economic migrants.
Our refugee application system has been characterised by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees as one of the most generous systems in the world. We are proud of these observations. It means that our democracy works for the people, as indeed it does.
For example, with regard to asylumseekers and refugees, as well as its acceding to international conventions, South Africa adopted domestic legal instruments to manage asylumseekers and refugees. Among others are the following:
Refugees shall not to be prosecuted on account of their illegal entry into ... South Africa, provided that they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
Refugees shall not to expelled from South Africa except on grounds of national security or public order.
Refugees shall be afforded basic security rights, including protection from the abuse of state power, such as wrongful arrest and detention, and protection against physical attack. Refugees shall be afforded basic human dignity rights, such as protection against discrimination, the right to family unity, freedom of movement and association, and freedom of religion.
Refugees shall be afforded self-sufficiency rights, such as the right to work and to education.
Refugees and asylumseekers are entitled by the Bill of Rights to social services.
Chairperson, international law and other instruments impose an obligation on all SADC states to ensure that their countries are politically stable and developing economically; and that their nationals are both identifiable and have proper travel documents so that they can be protected during their travel into the countries of their destination.
Furthermore, the issue of refugees and asylumseekers is a phenomenon which warrants the concerted efforts of government and civil society organisations alike to effectively manage its challenges as well as opportunities, and together to minimise the risk to national security. We must strive for greater co-ordination between all government departments, and between government and civil society.
According to the department there are more than 100 000 applications for asylum. Part of the challenge is that many individuals apply for asylum, but they are economic migrants who know that they will not qualify for refugee status under the principal Act. Yet they simply apply and then lodge an appeal if it is turned down. These are the challenges that lead to backlogs.
The ANC is heading towards 100 years of struggle for social justice and human dignity in South Africa and the world. It has remained one of the foremost champions of oppressed people, as it continues to subscribe to the noble principle of human solidarity. It is precisely for this role that the people of the world have always taken it for granted that the ANC will always be found on the side of the most progressive.
It is no accident of history that everybody expects the ANC to remain faithful to the global struggle for human rights and to uphold the human rights of others in daily struggle in relation to both South Africans and non-South Africans. It must therefore not come as a surprise that the ANC upholds the views it does towards internationalism, African solutions to African problems, and human solidarity.
Southern Africa faces a complex international migration phenomenon. Since 1994 South Africa has experienced an increasing, mixed flow of migrants ranging from undocumented migrants and asylumseekers to economic migrants as well as other forms of migrants, the majority of whom originate from the SADC region.
The Bill is also being dealt with in the context of the prevalence of international crimes or cross-border crimes, human trafficking and people running away from prosecution in their countries of origin. The nature of some of the crimes is serious, which warrants our treating them in a way proportionate to the degree of their gravity.
The Bill is specific on what constitutes serious crimes. For example, section 4 of the principal Act has been amended by insertion of the following:
... a crime that is not of a political nature and, if committed in the Republic, would be punishable by imprisonment (without the option of a fine).
The Bill also extends the condition for refusal and revocation of asylum to a crime committed outside the Republic before the application for asylum.
Chairperson, the ANC is committed to peace-building and the safety and security of our country. This commitment seeks to contribute to the international peace process and the safety and security of nations. Our good governance must also ensure that we do not become an entry point for criminal activities and the destabilisation of our country, region and continent.
We need to strengthen the capacity of the SAPS in dealing with cases pertaining to rights and obligations of refugees and asylumseekers. We must ensure that we sustain the training of the SAPS and judicial officers on issues of asylumseekers and refugees. Our law enforcement agencies must be capacitated in order to ensure that all the people become law-abiding citizens.
In conclusion, this Bill requires resources, such as human and financial resources, and appropriate systems to be in place for its implementation in order to ensure that we balance the developmental path of the country, and the security of the state, refugees and asylumseekers within the ambit of our Constitution and international law. The ANC supports the Bill with amendments.
Comrade Lovemore, we are not going to comment on the issues that you have just mentioned, because we are still dealing with the Bill, together with you and the committee. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson and hon members, on behalf of the Minister and the department let me thank everyone who participated in this debate. In the three minutes that I have to respond in, I will just touch on the more substantial issues.
A number of hon members raised in their speeches the inordinate lengths of time and the delays that are experienced in our refugee centres. We are very aware of these, we are alive to the problem and, in fact, some of the amendments that this House is busy with in regard to the legislation will go a long way in assisting us in alleviating some of those delays. I certainly hope that members are aware that all our efforts are directed toward ensuring that the system works well, particularly for genuine refugees who deserve the protection of the state.
I now want to deal with the absolutely astonishing claim by the hon Lovemore, who says that pre-screening at our boarders is contrary to our international conventions and obligations. I must say I find that absolutely extraordinary; it is quite clear that if the DA were ever - one day in the very very distant future - to govern this country, all sorts of murderers, rapists, organised criminals and terrorists would be allowed into this country because there would be no pre-screening. I just cannot understand how somebody can stand here, rationally arguing that we should not pre-screen people who want to come into our country. Clearly this is not against any international convention, practice or custom. Every single state in the world in the family of nations - any self-respecting state - would certainly do something like this. In fact, not to do so would be contrary to international custom and conventions, not to mention, of course, being a huge disservice to our country and our people.
To the hon Mbhele from Cope I want to say that, yes, we will require children who are born to refugees to be registered within 30 days and for them then to come to the refugee centre to record them as dependants. This is not a bigger obligation than the one that we put on South African citizens in the first place. We require South African citizens to register their new-born babies within 30 days as well. It is therefore not something more detrimental that will be suffered by refugees in our country. I hope that that clarifies the situation; we are certainly not going to be treating refugees any differently.
Lastly, in the last five seconds, let me just say to the hon Mathebe that the Aliens Control Act is actually not reflected in the Act. What it is, is that there is a complication with an amending Act that has not been put into force yet - it has not been implemented - and this amendment and that amendment will be implemented on the same day. Hopefully, therefore, that will be taken care of. However, I have a more substantive opinion from the officials who are kindly sitting here if you want to collect it from me. I simply do not have the time to elaborate. I thank you.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Alliance dissenting).