I am also keenly aware of the responsibilities attached to the office and for the Constitutional obligations that come with it In this report I present the results of our work for the past year. It has seen us conduct the financial audit of the Public Accounts, compliance audits of Ministries, Departments and Agencies as well as schools and vocational institutions.
Introduction This case concerns an important question relating to the role of the public in the law-making process. This issue lies at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The Court is required to answer three related questions.
The first question concerns the nature and the scope of the constitutional obligation of a legislative organ of the state to facilitate public involvement in its legislative processes and those of its committees and the consequences of the failure to comply with that obligation. The second question concerns the extent to which this Court may interfere in the processes of a legislative body in order to enforce the obligation to facilitate public involvement in law-making processes.
In particular, whether it is competent for this Court to interfere during the legislative process before a parliamentary or provincial bill is signed into law. The third question concerns the issue whether this Court is the only court that may consider the questions raised in this case.
These issues arise out of a constitutional complaint brought directly to this Court by Doctors for Life International, the applicant. Following a brief review of the facts, I will identify the issues for determination in this case. The constitutional challenge relates to these statutes, which I shall collectively call the health legislation.
The applicant accepts that the National Assembly has fulfilled its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in connection with the health legislation.
This, the applicant says, was done by the National Assembly by inviting members of the public to make written submissions to the National Portfolio Committee on Health and also by holding public hearings on the legislation. That process, the applicant maintains, complied with section 59 1 a of the Constitution.
This is what the duty to facilitate public involvement required of them, the applicant maintains. The Speakers of the nine provincial legislatures and the Minister of Health were subsequently joined as further respondents because of their interest in the issues raised in these proceedings.
The respondents deny the charge by the applicant. They maintain that both the NCOP and the various provincial legislatures complied with the duty to facilitate public involvement in their legislative processes. They also take issue with the scope of the duty to facilitate public involvement as asserted by the applicant.
While conceding that the duty to facilitate public involvement requires public participation in the law-making process, they contend that what is required is the opportunity to make either written or oral submissions at some point in the national legislative process.
The applicant has approached this Court directly. It alleges that this Court is the only court that has jurisdiction over the present dispute because it is one which concerns the question whether Parliament has fulfilled its constitutional obligations.
The jurisdiction of this Court to consider such disputes is conferred by section 4 e of the Constitution. The respondents did not contest any of this. There is therefore no dispute between the parties as to whether this Court has exclusive jurisdiction in this matter under section 4 e.
But the question whether this Court has exclusive jurisdiction in this matter is too important to be resolved by concession. When the applicant launched the present proceedings it was under the mistaken belief that all the health legislation was still in bill form.
But, as it turned out, all of the legislation except the Sterilisation Amendment Act had been promulgated when these proceedings were launched on 25 February The challenge relating to the Sterilisation Amendment Act would have required this Court to intervene during the legislative process.
|Background||Due to the complexities of health care services and systems, investigating and interpreting the use, costs, quality, accessibility, delivery, organization, financing, and outcomes of health care services is key to informing government officials, insurers, providers, consumers, and others making decisions about health-related issues.|
|What do these questions mean? NVQ 2 Help? | Yahoo Answers||Establishing good ethical standards is important in health care organizations.|
|Patient Care||No doubt the thought has occurred to the local police, that these may not actually have been proper cleaners at all, but fraudsters put in place with the express purpose of stealing the artwork.|
This raised the question of the competence of this Court to intervene in the legislative process. Given the importance of this question, the Chief Justice placed it squarely on our agenda by issuing directions.
Issues presented The issues that will be considered in this judgment are therefore these: I now turn to consider these issues. Does this Court have exclusive jurisdiction over the present dispute?
Whether the applicant is entitled to come directly to this Court in regard to its complaint against the NCOP depends on whether that complaint falls under section 4 e of the Constitution.
The contention that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction under section 4 e to decide the present dispute rests on two principal propositions: If both of these propositions are sound in law, the applicant is entitled to come directly to this Court. The first of these propositions, namely, that the provisions of section 72 1 a impose an obligation, is correct.
It is plain from the wording of section 72 1 a that it imposes an obligation to facilitate public involvement. Considering the provisions of section 59 1 athe National Assembly equivalent of section 72 1 athe Supreme Court of Appeal in King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control and Another, 6 held that the section imposes an obligation on Parliament to facilitate public involvement in its legislative processes.
The conclusion that section 72 1 a imposes an obligation on the NCOP to facilitate public involvement in its legislative processes leads to the second proposition, namely, that the obligation to facilitate public participation is the kind of obligation contemplated in section 4 e.
The merits of the second proposition must be considered at some length. This question is difficult to resolve.Health education: theoretical concepts, effective strategies and core competencies 6 Acknowledgements This publication is the product of contributions by many individuals.
Abstract: Internationalization is a word to which different meanings can be attributed. The same can be said about internationalization of psychology as well as about the education and training of psychologists.
As we all know, psychological science developed mainly in the western developed countries. Feb 08, · Best Answer: Are there any parts of your caring role that have any effects on the provision of services by other people. For example, are you paid to much or does your employer get good value for money from you?
Is there anything you could do to improve this situation? Do you manage others, and do you get Status: Resolved. Health care organizations and facilities must comply with federal and state standards in their treatment of patients and in facility operations.
Health care executives are typically responsible. Oct 16, · Explain the effect of own role on service provision, describe how own role links to the wider sector, describe the main roles and responsibilities of representative bodies that influence the wider schwenkreis.com: Resolved.
''All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing'' - Edmund Burke Welcome: S I E R R A H E R A L D. Vol 9 No 3: The tendency sometimes to protect perpetrators for the sake of peace doesn't help society.