Hon Deputy Speaker, the Immigration Act is supposed to be as attractive and welcoming as possible to skilled migrants. The amendments of this Bill serve to make the migration regime more restrictive. With these amendments, South Africa will not be able to achieve the President's stated goals of economic growth. We also note that these amendments are a move towards managing, rather than controlling immigration.
The elimination of an entire class of professionals, that is the immigration practitioners, is not welcomed by the IFP. The reason for the above is that it is necessary to have competently trained and accountable persons assisting the public in procedural activities that flow from the Immigration Act. The removal of immigration practitioners will have the consequence of legitimising corrupt and unethical consultants. How will the Department of Home Affairs officials be prevented from receiving applications from syndicates involving persons illegally conducting their trade? The department will also have to respond to thousands of individual applicants and companies, and this will place a huge load on public resources.
The IFP also does not support the reduction in the asylum transit permit period from 14 days to five days. Asylumseekers need to be given a reasonable time within which to register for asylum status. While 14 days is a reasonable time, the five days places undue pressure on both the asylumseeker and the department to process the application. The unfortunate effect is that many asylumseekers will be made illegal due to time constraints and processing pressures.
The IFP concurs with other opposition party portfolio committee members: a discretional clause should have been included in the Bill on critical skills. This would allow for applications to be made directly to the director-general for a skill that is not listed, but can be sufficiently motivated as a critical skill which will be of distinct benefit to South Africa. The IFP does not support the Bill either. Thank you. [Applause.]