Deputy Speaker, the DA is well aware that South Africa receives by far the highest number of asylumseekers in the world. We will fully support well-informed policy and law that effects a workable migration regime - one that enhances both national security and economic development. The DA is disturbed, however, at the extensive changes this Bill proposes in the absence of a comprehensive migration policy. The department's strategic plan targets identifying policy options during the coming financial year, so a migration policy is still a few years away.
The Bill was introduced as necessary to make urgent technical amendments. It is, instead, far-reaching, and we believe it could well be seriously detrimental to this country's economic growth. We question the procedure followed in bulldozing this Bill through Parliament, hon Minister: no consultation was undertaken by the department; one week's notice was given by Parliament of the deadline for public submissions; immediately prior to committee deliberations on the Bill, the Minister held a press conference and made statements such as, "We are going to make all these changes" and "We are not going to change this". The Minister then made the same speech to the portfolio committee. Debate was seriously stifled by the Minister having issued direct instructions on what would not be changed.
This Bill removes the exceptional skills permit. It replaces it with a critical skills visa. An applicant for an exceptional skills permit was able to motivate why his or her expertise or skills were exceptional and why they would be of benefit to South Africa. Not so with critical skills. A list will be gazetted. A person with a skill that is not listed will simply not qualify. Based on the department's dismal record with other similar lists, we believe that this change will only serve to keep critical skills out.
With respect to the changes to the asylum transit permit or visa, the director-general "must" issue the visa if the person complies with the prescribed procedure. The Bill currently uses the word "may". The prescribed procedure is not known. Pre-screening for involvement in criminal activities is of course a requirement. At present, however, no other reason can be given for refusing an applicant an asylum transit visa.
Shortening the time period for refugees to report to a refugee reception centre to five days will only result in genuine asylumseekers being rendered illegal. It will not assist in managing the migrant problem.
The DA understands the concept of enabling legislation. However, this Bill is so heavily reliant on regulations that a true assessment of its impact is rendered well-nigh impossible. This is tantamount to giving the Minister a blank cheque to determine South Africa's migration regime - potentially unconstitutionally. We refer the Minister to the Constitutional Court judgment in Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, where Judge Kate O'Regan declared particular immigration regulations constitutionally invalid based on exactly what we are saying here: that there was no guidance from the legislature, which is Parliament.
I had a desperate call last night from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who is very anxious about this Bill. [Interjections.] I suggest that the Minister speaks to them. Later in this debate, my colleague will provide further reasons why the DA cannot support this Bill and indeed objects to it in its entirety.
HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear! [Applause.]