Hon Chairperson, look, I think it is quite clear that this is a Bill that has the support of all the parties in the House. It is a good Bill that will do good. It is an institution that is already there and that is exemplary, as we have heard from many of the speakers.
It is unfortunate that, but I suppose it's natural, some parties' members would use the opportunity to wax political on the issue. But let me just respond to some of them. Maybe I will just start with the hon Litchfield- Tshabalala, who says that it is shameful that we are only changing a 1969 Act now.
I mean, as with many of the things that the EFF says, they may make good sound bytes, but what do they actually mean. What exactly, hon Litchfield- Tshabalala, was wrong with the old Legal Practice Act that we are repealing? Did you know that the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has 158 statutes, laws, that it administers; major laws. Fifty of them are pre-1970, from 1969 and earlier.
It might sound very good, but it is terrible, that we are taking so long to amend a Bill that was originally passed in 1969; but it is actually meaningless.
It is also very good, hon Litchfield-Tshabalala, to go and criticise and say, oh no, Legal Aid SA uses people who have just graduated from law school, to represent murder accused. You know that that's not possible because you can't appear in the regional court, which is the lowest court in which a murder case could be heard, without having completed your articles some time before.
The issue is, let's not damage the institution. Legal Aid SA has an extremely good reputation, as you have heard. One of the other issues is that, amongst law firms, it is the second most sought-after legal body to work for. The most sought-after is one of the top five, then it is Legal Aid SA. Where there is criticism, take it up properly and don't just moan. Take them up, because those avenues exist.
As far as hon Singh's points are concerned, the reason that Legal Aid SA has moved to employing lawyers rather than using the judicare system that existed before 1994, when Legal Aid SA paid private lawyers to do the work is that it is much more cost-effective for them to employ their own lawyers. It costs about half of each case for which a person is represented. It is about half the cost than if it were done by a private lawyer.
There is still provision for private lawyers, but it is very limited because of the cost of it. There is provision in the Legal Practice Act for community service, for law graduates and for private practitioners. In fact, the private practitioners have to do community service to be able to practise and that period will be set by the Legal Practice Council.
You are correct that the Law Society sets a number of hours. Some of the law firms do a lot more than that. Some I think do only that. The issue is really with legal aid and it is also a question of civil representation. Constitutionally Legal Aid SA has to represent the accused in criminal matters where a substantial injustice would occur if they were not represented. That's the first priority that needs to be covered.
They are extending this to cover civil matters, but it depends on the funding. Linked to that is the issue of support, and this was also one of the hon Litchfield-Tshabalala's points. The issue is the fact that the Bill doesn't provide for the funding of commissions.
Remember that in a commission of inquiry, nobody can be ordered to pay any money, in terms of damages, as you would get in a civil court. Nobody can be punished or sent to jail. They are basically just recommendations, I suppose, similar to other bodies' recommendations. The issue that one has to look at is whether that is the most effective way of spending money? Would it be better if there were representation in a civil claim or representation if somebody is accused of committing murder?
We have different types of commissions of inquiry. The hon Leader of the Opposition has now left. His party or his leader had a commission of inquiry in the Western Cape on policing. Should Legal Aid SA have provided legal representation for people from Khayelitsha. It wouldn't have been cost-effective. I want to thank everybody for participating in the debate and to express appreciation for those who have brought support for the Bill. I hope that the House will approve the Bill.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.