Deputy Speaker, the Immigration Amendment Bill has been introduced with the ultimate aim of revising the provisions relating to the Immigration Advisory Board, streamlining the procedures for changing temporary residence permits to visas for those who are in the country for a short while and streamlining the determination of permanent residence.
The Bill will enable Home Affairs to create permits for those who have the critical skills that South Africa desperately needs. In the current information age, countries depend on the critical skills its highly educated people possess. Therefore we welcome the new critical skills category included in the Bill. The scarce skills list, however, will need to be monitored to determine whether it is in keeping with the six priority areas announced by President Zuma.
While the Bill has merit, some of the processes it will give birth to will create problems. According to the submission by Lawyers for Human Rights, the amendment to section 23(1) will give an individual in transit only five days to travel to the nearest refugee reception office to apply for asylum. Fewer individuals may therefore be able to make an application for asylum within the specified period of time. This may very well make internationally protected refugees vulnerable to arrest. Furthermore, the five permanent refugee reception offices are not likely to have the capacity to meet the overwhelming demand and the new law will in all probability create a fairly futile situation. Many asylumseekers will therefore be without proper legal status. It is therefore critical that refugee reception offices have the necessary staff capacity and skills to address the applications expeditiously.
The whole purpose of this Act is to encourage the legal and regulated crossing of persons across state borders and to decrease illegal activity. In this regard, the role of immigration consultants is vital and should not be discouraged in any way. People have a constitutional right to representation, and it is better to have clear regulation for immigration practitioners rather than seeking to exclude them.
We now come to a second difficulty: the pre-screening process at ports of entry, where an immigration officer will determine if the applicant has a prima facie claim to refugee status or not, is in direct conflict with the Refugees Act, accordingly to which only a refugee status determination officer has the lawful authority and expertise to determine who is a refugee in terms of the Act and international law. What qualification and experience will an immigration officer have to make such a determination? This has not been well thought out. As we see it, it will once again encourage illegal border crossing. Clarity must be obtained on how the pre- screening process will occur and whether this will conform to our laws.
Cope welcomes the inclusion of children carrying child passports in order to halt child trafficking. However, this is only a starting point in the fight against child trafficking. The tracking of unaccompanied children must receive the full consideration of the department.
A third difficulty arises with the imposition of duties regarding passenger lists on conveyances. Such a provision could lead to costly litigation for the department. Most laws have unintended consequences, and the laws that are contained in this Bill will fall into that category. However, seeing as the government is bent on pursuing its own advice, we trust that the department will have staff who are adequately trained to implement the provisions of this Bill without violating provisions in other statutes or in the Constitution.
A good immigration policy should work for all parties in a just and equitable manner. Cope therefore cannot support this Bill. I thank you, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]