ZONDI AJ [73] It seems to me that a proper balance can be struck by suspending a declaration of invalidity and ordering an interim reading-in. Suspension coupled with an interim reading-in is a remedy that does not intrude unduly into the domain of Parliament. It is a remedy that gives recognition to the need to respect the separation of powers and in particular the role of Parliament as the institution constitutionally entrusted with the task of enacting legislation.60 Such a remedy will prevent uncertainty by avoiding the piecemeal judicial amendment of legislation. It is a remedy that will allow Parliament to conduct the thorough process of consideration and constitutionally required consultation to properly cure the constitutional defect. This is the remedy which in my view is just and equitable. [74] The third pillar of the applicants‘ objection to suspension of the declaration of invalidity is based on the Minister‘s failure to explain what he has done to have the constitutional defect remedied. The contention is that this Court should not suspend the order in circumstances where the Minister has not accounted for the failure to correct the defect in the section. While I accept that there has been a delay on the part of the Minister to remedy the constitutional defect of the impugned provision, I do not agree that the delay is unreasonable and that it provides a sufficient basis to not suspend the constitutional invalidity of the order. In the explanatory affidavit deposed to by Mr Bassett on behalf of the Minister, the latter points out that the South African Law Reform Commission has over the years been assisting his department with empirical research on how best to infuse the changing norms, values and interests of society with the pre-1994 statutory framework and its recommendations have led to the amendment of, among others, the CPA and the enactment of SORMA. He points out further that that a further amendment in relation to aligning section 18(h) of the CPA with the new offences relating to the trafficking of children, and the inclusion of offences relating to torture, are under consideration. This explanation is reasonable and it was therefore a prudent thing for the Minister to wait for this Court‘s confirmation before taking steps 60 National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs [1999] ZACC 17; 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC); 2000 (1) BCLR 39 (CC) at para 66 and C v Department of Health and Social Development [2012] ZACC 1; 2012 (2) SA 208 (CC); 2012 (4) BCLR 329 (CC) at para 89. 31