42. The 1st Claimant argues the foregoing provisions offend sections 13, 20, 30(3) and 31(1) of the Constitution. 43. The Attorney General submitted that the categorical distinction is rationally connected to legitimate governmental purposes including administrative feasibility, financial and compliance implications, employment protection, and progressive policy implementation. He invited this Court to follow the South African Constitutional Court's approach in socio-economic rights cases that emphasizes reasonableness and progressive realization. In Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC), the Court held that the state's program must be reasonable, must make provision for those in desperate need, and must demonstrate progressive realization within available resources. 44. Counsel for the 2nd Defendant argued that section 11 of the Pension Act, is clear. It merely gives the Minister the power to exempt any class or category of employers or employees from complying with the requirements on the mandatory occupational pension scheme. The power to exempt is then exercised by publishing an exemption order in the Gazette. 45. The approach to be taken by a Court when faced with a statutory provision that is clear was spelt out by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Royal International Insurance Holdings Ltd v Gemini Holdings Ltd and another [1998] MLR 318. In the words of Unyolo, CJ (as he then was), at page 32: - Page 18 of 45