MR HATTINGH
Mr Chairman, I've indicated I wouldn't waste much more time, I would leave it to you, but I think if the Legislature wanted to say a full disclosure of all relevant facts pertaining to an incident, then they should very well have entered that.  They elected not to include those words.  So, I think it is for this Committee to decide what facts are relevant facts.  If this Commission believe that a serious incident for which an application was made which forms part of the application, that it is relevant, then it needs to be dealt with.  I may just conclude that as far as section 23(ii), that's of the Act, we are looking at
"Acts and omissions or offences committed by any person referred to in subsection (ii) who acted for personal gain."
That's in subsection (i) and in subsection (ii):
"Out of personal malice, ill-will or spite."
Now this is specifically what I would like to deal with, is I would try to find out whether this as a rule, as a modus operandi operated or acted for personal gain, personal malice, ill-will or spite and for that reason I believe that a full disclosure of all relevant facts need to include also other incidents.  Then just to end my argument, if we look at section thirty one (31) of the Act, in particular 31(2).  It is stated:
"A person referred to in subsection (1) shall only be compelled to answer a question or to produce an article which may incriminate him or her if the Commission has issued an order to that effect after the Commission has consulted with the Attorney-General who has jurisdiction."
I must just stop here.  It would indicate or it would appear from this section of the Act that this Commission very well has the powers of compelling a witness to tell more than he's in fact prepared or he would like to do at this stage, but on certain conditions.  The Commission needs to consult with the Attorney-General who has jurisdiction.  The Commission has to satisfy itself that to require such ... (intervention)