Chairperson, and all members who participated in this debate, firstly, regarding all the issues that have been raised about the audit qualification of the department, I did indicate in my opening remarks the turnaround strategy that the department is embarking upon. So, in the next few months we will be reporting to Parliament and the portfolio committee to see the milestones that will be registered in effecting this turnaround strategy.
I indicated earlier in my speech that I had had several discussions with the Auditor-General. We are working very closely with National Treasury in order to bring about capacity in the department to address all the challenges that we face.
I would like to refer to some of the issues that were raised by hon members. The hon Smuts said that our Constitution only talked about a representative Public Service, not the appointment of judicial officers. I just want to refer her to section 174(2) of our Constitution that we all adopted in 1996, which states:
The need for the judiciary to reflect broadly the racial and gender composition of South Africa must be considered when judicial officers are appointed.
So, the hon Smuts read the Constitution continually.
With regard to the second point, that we need to reconsider the composition of the Judicial Service Commission, I think that the comment is misplaced because the composition of the JSC does not emanate from executive influence. It is a creature of the Constitution. So there is nothing wrong with the composition of the Judicial Service Commission, because it derives its function from the Constitution itself.
In any event, all those who serve on the Judicial Service Commission, even though they come from the legal profession - be it attorneys, advocates or from Parliament - the moment they are there, they don't represent their constituencies. In any event, I don't get my mandate from Cabinet when I sit there. I vote in accordance with my own conscience on the basis of what people themselves have presented before the Judicial Service Commission.
The Constitution also states that the decision of the JSC is based on the majority of its members. So if you do not vote for a particular candidate, there is nothing we can do about that. If the DA is a democratic organisation, it must also accept that other structures of the JSC have to take that decision in accordance with the majority of its members. Mr Smith here knows what I am talking about.
So the complaint about the Western Cape has nothing to do with anything other than that you voted in accordance with your own conscience and the majority of the members of the JSC voted in the manner in which they did. That's all I can say.
With regard to the issue of the apex court and the Constitutional Court, the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill, which is before Parliament as we speak, actually affirmed what already is a de facto situation in which the Constitutional Court is an apex court. In any event, any law in South Africa has to emanate from the Constitution. So it cannot be argued that the judges of the Constitutional Court are junior to other judges. They actually are the ultimate arbiter of all matters that pertain to the Republic of South Africa. I do hope that this debate is finalised when we debate the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Bill together with the Superior Courts Bill, where it will be affirmed that the Constitutional Court is the apex court on all matters.
Mr Oriani-Ambrosini, I think the hon J H Jeffery has already answered your question. But, to start with the issue of reforming the judicial system, justice reform in South Africa is under way as we speak. So you are allowed to come and make your own proposal as we continue to reform the civil justice system in South Africa.
On the issue of the extension of the term of office of the Chief Justice, I can only emphasise what the hon J H Jeffery said, in that there is nothing procedurally wrong that has been done. It emanates from section 176 of the Constitution in terms of which an Act of Parliament has already been passed here. I am sure Mr Oriani-Ambrosini was not here in 2001 because he was busy ill-advising Home Affairs. [Laughter.]
Therefore, if you read the Hansard of 1 November 2001, you would see the exhaustive support of all Members of Parliament on this Act of Parliament, now called the Judges' Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act of 2001, which provides for the President to extend the term of office of the most eminent Chief Justice of this great Republic.