Page:NCGLE v Minister of Home Affairs.djvu/74

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Ackermann J

[76]It should also be borne in mind that whether the remedy a court grants is one striking down, wholly or in part; or reading into or extending the text, its choice is not final. Legislatures are able, within constitutional limits, to amend the remedy, whether by re-enacting equal benefits, further extending benefits, reducing them, amending them, “fine-tuning” them[1] or abolishing them. Thus they can exercise final control over the nature and extent of the benefits.[2]

  1. As it was put in Westcott, above n 97.
  2. See, for example, Caminker, above n 97 at 1187 where the following is aptly stated:

    “Whether a court creates graveyards or vineyards, its choice is not final. Where courts nullify provisions, legislatures can respond by enacting extended and hence constitutional versions; where courts extend provisions, legislatures can subsequently repeal them. Thus, the legislature retains final control over the extension/nullification