The second relevant provision in the Children’s Amendment Bill relates to the insertion of a new part in the Principal Act (Part IIIA) on the establishment of a Sex Offenders’ Register. Clause 11 of the Amendment Bill seeks to insert section 13A to the principle Act, which section provides for the establishment and contents of the Sex Offenders’ Register. Those who are convicted of sexual offences will be entered into a sex offenders register, including a child offender in the 16-18 years age bracket. While the introduction of the Register itself would no doubt be a welcome deterrent, the prejudice occasioned on the children in the 16-18 age group, which is not protected by the law as it currently stands, is amplified. This gives further impetus to the need either to reform the age of consent upwards to match the definition of child, or to introduce a close-in-age exemption in our law. The third relevant provision in the Children’s Amendment Bill relates to medical examination and treatment of children and young persons. Clause 9 of the Amendment Bill seeks to insert a sub clause to section 9 of the principal Act which is titled “Medical examination and treatment of children and young persons”. The proposed amendment reads as follows: “(13) Any person who denies a child medical treatment or access to medical treatment shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level ten or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both such fine and such imprisonment”. Should this section be enacted into law, it would essentially permit children to have access to medical treatment, including access to medicines. For such a clause however to take effect without contradictions and inconsistencies in the law, other clauses that place agerelated restrictions to access to certain medical treatments for children will have to be attended to and be addressed. For instance, the amendment does not make that provision subject to existing law, meaning that it is possible for a medical officer who denies a child treatment on the basis of absence of parental consent to be found guilty of contravention the amended Section 9(13) of the Children’s Act. This would, obviously, create an inconsistency in the law. Yet another possible reading of the amendment is that a medical officer would only be liable of contravening the section in cases where the child comes to seek treatment in terms of existing law, that is, with parental consent, but is denied treatment. The possibility of these two readings is perhaps an indication of the need to be specific in the proposed amendment. The clause as it currently stands is therefore ambiguous. The Education Amendment Bill seeks to introduce two critical aspects to the Education Act [Chapter 25:04]. The first relates to the appointment of sexual and reproductive health educators in schools. Essentially there is recognition of the need to start teaching sexual and reproductive heath issues in the curricula. Sex education has always been advanced by both child protection specialists and our own courts as highlighted above, as a step in promoting 32