ZA HANSARDS

→ Parliamentary → National Assembly - 21 June 2000

« Previous Debate

Next Debate »

National Assembly - 21 June 2000

WEDNESDAY, 21 JUNE 2000 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                                ____

The House met at 15:04.

The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

             DECISION ON POSSIBLE STANBIC-NEDCOR MERGER

                             (Statement)

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, hon members, firstly I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to address Parliament. It is indeed an indulgence. It is also a line-function responsibility I have over which I have exercised an executive decision, but one which I would like to share with this House and the people of our country. I thought that, in keeping with the status of Parliament, I should choose this podium to make this announcement, rather than to do it on the outside.

It relates to the application by Nedcor for my consent to acquire 49% of the shares in Standard Bank Investment Corporation. This matter has dominated the discourse on the financial pages, certainly since November last year when the application was first made. This matter has been to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal for a decision on who shall decide. It has been examined by the Competition Commission and by the Registrar of Banks and, finally, it landed on my desk for decision.

I met delegations from both Nedcor and Stanbic earlier this month, as well as a delegation from Sasbo, a trade union active in the banking sector. Although I indicated to them that I would not examine these issues anew, because I would accept, to some extent, what had gone before from the Competition Commission and the Registrar of Banks, I also needed to be informed of their views about this matter. Earlier today I met with Mr Chris Liebenberg of Nedcor and Dr Conrad Strauss and Mr Jaco Maree of Stanbic to share with them what my decision is. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the respective chairpersons, to the chief executives of these banks and also to their teams for their professional conduct in engaging with us on this matter, and accepting the decision in the spirit that they have.

The Banks Act requires that the Minister of Finance only grants permission for an acquisition if such acquisition will not be contrary to the public interest, to the bank concerned, or to the interests of depositors in such institutions. Our examination covered a series of public interest issues. Firstly, regarding the impact of such a proposed acquisition on competition, we examined the existing concentration of banks in this country and recognised that South Africa belongs to a group of countries with a high concentration of banks. Concern about this issue has been expressed by both the registrar and the Competition Commission. Against this, we evaluated the technology and efficiency gains that might derive from a merger, and we arrived at the view that these gains do not outweigh the anticompetitive effects if the merger were allowed to proceed.

Furthermore, the resultant overconcentration is likely to result in smaller banks having difficulty in attracting deposits. Some concerns were also expressed in other jurisdictions under similar circumstances. For instance, my colleague Paul Martin, the Finance Minister in Canada, said, that ``such mergers would lead to an unacceptable concentration of our economic power in the hands of fewer large banks’’, about a similar issue in Canada.

We also looked at consumer impact. We first looked at access to banking services. Nedcor was of the view that the overall accessibility for customers to branches and ATMs would be much improved by the merger of itself and Stanbic. They further submitted that such a merger would not affect the retention of branches in rural areas as there would be about 670 ATMs relocated to enhance services to the underbanked. It needs to be noted that Stanbic has also invested heavily in ATM access. It has about 2 400 ATMs - two and a half as many as Nedcor has. I am of the view that the proposed relocation of 670 ATMs is likely to result in a shrinking of access in existing areas which may not necessarily be in the public interest. Of particular concern is the possible impact on banking services to the underbanked and rural areas.

We also looked at product lines and service delivery. Generally, whilst economies of scales might arise from mergers such as this in which unit costs can be reduced and such cost reductions passed on to the consumer, these circumstances would be regarded as a public-interest benefit. The pursuit of efficiencies may also result in the rationalisation of the product lines of both Nedcor and Stanbic, with some cost benefit for consumers. There may, however, be instances in which the rationalisation of product lines in pursuit of efficiencies and profitability may work against the public interest. An example would be the case in which a product that is less profitable is discontinued, even if it serves a public need.

The second aspect we looked at was nonbanking issues - the concentration in respect of the Liberty Group and Old Mutual. In this regard, we are also concerned about the risk of value to the Liberty Group and the impact that this could have in impairing the growth of Liberty and the possible prejudice to shareholders. We looked at the cost structure of Liberty. It is likely to remain the same, but we recognised that the income stream could possibly diminish until alternative channels are identified and put into place. The third aspect we looked at was the peremptory requirement of the legislation, an examination of whether the proposed acquisition would be contrary to the interests of the bank concerned. Here we took account of, amongst other things, the fact that the Standard Bank brand is highly recognised in South Africa, and that its profitability has not been in question anywhere, certainly not within Nedcor either.

Amongst the four big banks in this country, Nedcor has the lowest cost-to- income ratio. Stanbic has suggested that this is because Nedcor has, in part, limited its risk through focusing on the middle to upper-middle income market. This is in line with its corporate identity too. On the other hand, Stanbic has focused its vision on the mass market. There is a marked difference, therefore, between the corporate outlook and culture of the banks concerned, which may lead to operational difficulties in a merged entity, with the possible loss of focus.

Further, the systemic risk which could result in the event of a failure, would arise in circumstances in which Stanbic and the Standard Bank felt that they were being dragged into something that they were not willingly a party to. We examined the proposed acquisition in the context of the interests of depositors. Again, there is the great concern about the size of the entity that would arise from such a merger and the possibility of a medium to high adverse impact on the ability of the authorities to stem a systemic crisis, should it arise.

Against this backdrop, we need to recognise that South Africa’s banking system, though undoubtedly in need of improvement in certain areas if it is to effectively meet the challenges posed by globalisation and the resultant need for more efficient banks, is, in my view, still considerably healthy. Nedcor’s achievements as a bank are not a source of pride only for itself, its depositors and shareholders, but also for the country as a whole. The Registrar of Banks is therefore correct in saying that Nedcor’s track record constitutes a strong argument for ``regulators not to impede the ability of the market to decide on the ownership of a bank, provided that the owners meet the criteria set out in legislation’’.

Section 37(4) of the Banks Act is peremptory in its requirement that permission for the proposed acquisition be granted only if the Minister of Finance is satisfied that it will not be contrary to the factors set out in the legislation. A further sensitive issue related to the proposed merger is that of its likely impact on employment in the banks concerned. The estimates of the number of job losses resulting from the merger ranged between 10 000 and 15 000. It has been pointed out that natural staff attrition or average turnover of staff in the banking sector is between 12% and 13% per year. This would translate into about 18 000 for both banks over a three-year period.

The Competition Commission has ruled against the proposed merger. It has expressed itself in this regard as follows:

In conclusion, therefore, the commission is of the view that the proposed transaction should be prohibited on the grounds that it will have significant social costs (primarily) potential abuse of market power in the retail banking market and potential job losses, which represent a net loss to society, which cannot be offset by any potential efficiency gains or public interest considerations.

I have considered the commission’s report and have noted its conclusion.

The recommendation of the Registrar of Banks may be summarised, and I quote, as follows:

I am of the opinion that the risks of the application outweigh the merits. Accordingly, I recommend that the application by Nedcor to acquire more than 49% of the shares of Stanbic not be approved.

The Registrar has advised that:

Nedcor has not provided conclusive evidence that the potential efficiency gains and public interest considerations would exceed the social costs of potential market abuse and job losses.

Having carefully considered the recommendations of the registrar and the commisssion, as well as the submissions of Nedcor, Stanbic and Sasbo, I would reiterate that I am not satisfied that the potential efficiency gains would exceed the public interest concerns of diminished competition, potential market concentration and job losses, the attendant risks if the merged entity were to fail. That the proposed acquisition is considered by Stanbic to be hostile is merely one of the factors taken into account in my decision. Given the factors outlined regarding the concentration of economic power that would arise from the merger and the attendant risks, I would remain extremely concerned, even if there was a friendly interaction between Stanbic and Nedcor.

Accordingly, I decline to grant permission for Nedcor to acquire over 49% of the total nominal value … [Applause] … of the shares as set out in the application in terms of section 37 of the Banks Act, and I trust that all parties in this House will support us in our decision. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I thank you, hon Minister, for your statement. I understand you have an appointment, and we will excuse you.

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to inform you that Mr Bonginkosi Wesley Dhlamini is waiting outside to be sworn in.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Van der Merwe, but I think you ought to wait till I announce a vacancy. [Laughter.] Unless you were proposing that he was taking over from the Minister of Finance. [Laughter.]

                             NEW MEMBER

                           (Announcement)

The Speaker announced that the vacancy caused by the death of Mr T S Khoza on 28 May 2000 had been filled by Mr B W Dhlamini with effect from 21 June 2000.

                                OATH

Mr B W Dhlamini, accompanied by Mr J H van der Merwe and Mr V B Ndlovu, made and subscribed the oath and took his seat.

                    MEETING OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

                           (Announcement)

The SPEAKER: Order! I wish to announce that the National Assembly will meet at 09:00 tomorrow morning, when His Excellency the Deputy President will be making a statement to us on the events in KwaZulu-Natal. QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Ms H I BOGOPANE: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that today heads of investment promotion from 40 African states meet in Durban at the 10th Southern African economic summit where a joint plan of action will be devised on how to attract foreign investment to the continent;

(2) believes that the summit is a critical step in furthering the economic rebirth of our continent, a fundamental aspect of the ideal of the African renaissance, as articulated by President Thabo Mbeki; and

(3) welcomes the delegates to the summit and wishes them every success in their formulation of a joint plan of action to attract foreign investment to our continent.

Mev P W CUPIDO: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die DP sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) kennis neem dat -

   (a)  algemene anargie, wanorde en chaos heers by die uitbetaling van
       pensioene, ongeskiktheidstoelae en kindertoelae, omdat hierdie
       toelae op dieselfde dag by dieselfde betaalpunte uitbetaal word
       ...

Mnr D V BLOEM: Abe, Abe, Abe! (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mrs P W CUPIDO: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House - (1) notes that -

   (a)  total anarchy, disorder and chaos prevail when pensions,
       disability grants and children's grants are paid out, because
       these grants are all paid out on the same day at the same pay
       points ...

Mr D V BLOEM: Abe, Abe, Abe!]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Forget about a, b or c and pay attention to the member. [Laughter.] Please continue, hon member.

Mev P W CUPIDO: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gaan voort:

Dat die Huis -

(1) kennis neem dat -

   (b)  die DP voorstel dat -


       (i)   die nuwe uitbetaalstelsel en kontrakvoorwaardes van die
              konsultante as 'n saak van dringendheid hersien word; en
       (ii)  die verskillende toelae op verskillende dae uitbetaal
              word;

(2) van mening is dat ons aan die hulpbehoewendes, veral die oues van dae, beter ondersteuning en ‘n goeie en gesonde administrasie verskuldig is; en

(3) die Minister versoek om toe te sien dat amptenare die publiek met meer empatie en respek behandel.

[Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mrs P W CUPIDO: Mr Chairperson, I continue:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (b)  the DP proposes that -


       (i)   the new system of payment and the contractual conditions
              of the consultants be reviewed as a matter of urgency;
              and
       (ii)  the various grants be paid out on different days;

(2) is of the opinion that we owe the needy, in particular the aged, better support and a proper and sound administration; and

(3) requests the Minister to ensure that officials treat the public with more empathy and respect.

[Interjections.]]

Chief M W HLENGWA: Mr Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the IFP:

That the House -

(1) acknowledges the President’s comments on the vexed issue of the demarcation of municipal boundaries in his speech during the debate on his Vote;

(2) welcomes his proposed meeting with traditional leaders in July to discuss their concerns regarding this matter and his willingness, on previous occasions, to enter into such dialogue;

(3) regrets the comments made in the National Assembly by the Minister for Provincial and Local Government when he described Rev K M Zondi, MP, as a prophet of doom for reporting the view of traditional leaders that great trouble lies ahead if the Government presses on with its current policy on demarcation before reaching consensus with the amakhosi;

(4) calls on the Minister for Provincial and Local Government to reconsider his comments which imply that traditional leaders are also ``prophets of doom’’ when they are simply expressing the grave concerns of those they represent …

[Time expired.]

Mr T R MOFOKENG: Chair, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  the people of Zimbabwe will be going to the polls on 24 and 25
       June 2000 to determine the future of their country; and

   (b)  the presence of international observer missions in Zimbabwe has
       contributed to a significant decrease in violent incidents;

(2) acknowledges that there are isolated incidents of violence and intimidation; and

(3) calls on the people of Zimbabwe to go to the polls on the election days and to vote and ensure that the general elections proceed without incidents of violence and intimidation.

[Applause.]

Dr W A ODENDAAL: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) sy volle steun verleen aan grondhervorming wat daartoe sal lei dat binne afsienbare tyd, afgesien van ‘n groot aantal bestaansboere, ook ‘n lewenskragtige en welvarende swart kommersiële boeregemeenskap in Suid-Afrika tot stand sal kom;

(2) van mening is dat so ‘n program te alle tye die wese van suksesvolle, markgedrewe ekonomiese stelsels oor die wêreld heen sal eerbiedig en beskerm, naamlik sekerheid van private eiendomsbesit, wat onder meer markwaarde as grondslag vir grondtransaksies insluit; en

 3) verder van mening is dat daar, wanneer die kwotas grond bereken word
    wat deur boere van die verskillende bevolkingsgemeenskappe besit of
    benut word, rekening gehou moet word daarmee dat die
    produksiepotensiaal van die landbougrond in die oostelike derde van
    Suid-Afrika ruweg dubbel dié is van dié van die twee-derdes in die
    westelike woestyn- en halfwoestynstreke van ons land. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.) [Dr W A ODENDAAL: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the New NP:

That the House -

(1) gives its full support to land reform which, in the foreseeable future, will lead to the establishment not only of a large number of subsistence farmers, but also of a vigorous and prosperous black commercial farming community in South Africa;

(2) is of the opinion that such a programme will at all times honour and protect the essence of successful, market-driven economic systems throughout the world, namely security of tenure, which includes, inter alia, market value as a basis for land transactions; and

(3) is further of the opinion that, when the land quotas to be owned or utilised by farmers from the various population groups are being calculated, account should be taken of the fact that the production potential of agricultural land in the eastern one third of South Africa is roughly double that of the two thirds in the western desert and semi-desert regions of our country.]

Mr S ABRAM: Chair, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the pending general elections in Zimbabwe on 24 and 25 June
       2000;

   (b)  that statements in the media quote claims by various sources
       that the elections are not expected to be free and fair; and

   (c)  the reported unacceptable levels of intimidation and violence
       which have marred the election campaign; and

(2) wishes -

   (a)  the voters of Zimbabwe a democratic and successful election,
       hopefully free of violence and intimidation; and

   (b)  the various remaining observer missions godspeed in their task
       and a safe return to their home countries, and looks forward to
       their objective assessment of the election process.

Ms P K MOTHOAGAE: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes with serious concern the recent assault of a black traffic officer on duty by two white males in Christiana in the North West;

(2) notes that the traffic officer, Mr Junior Mabilo, was allegedly treated in the most degrading manner by these two white motorists because of the colour of his skin;

(3) believes that racism is alive and kicking in South Africa and is rife in Christiana and many other towns in the rural areas;

(4) calls on the MECs for safety and security to ensure that such racist attacks are acted upon swiftly and judiciously wherever they take place; and

(5) calls on the DP and the New NP to teach their members and supporters to desist from racism and to treat all human beings with respect and dignity.

[Applause.]

Dr C P MULDER: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) kennis neem daarvan dat die jeugligas van die Afrikanerbond en die ANC gedurende die afgelope naweek saam vergader het en dat die President van Suid-Afrika, mnr Mbeki, by hierdie vergadering teenwoordig was; (2) die ANC en mnr Mbeki daaraan herinner dat hoewel die Afrikanerbond ‘n belangrike organisasie is, is dit glad nie die enigste organisasie buite die partypolitiek waarmee die President en die ANC-regering samesprekings behoort te hou nie;

(3) ‘n beroep op die President doen om ‘n ope brief te beantwoord wat hy maande gelede van die groep van 24 akademici ontvang het; en

 4) 'n verdere beroep op die President doen om in gesprek te tree met
    ander Afrikaanse en Afrikaner-groepe en -organisasies, soos die
    Groep van 63, Praag en die FAK. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Dr C P MULDER: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes that the youth leagues of the Afrikanerbond and the ANC met last week-end and that the President of South Africa, Mr Mbeki, was present at this meeting; (2) reminds the ANC and Mr Mbeki that although the Afrikanerbond is an important organisation, it is certainly not the only organisation outside party politics with which the President and the ANC Government should hold discussions;

(3) appeals to the President to reply to an open letter which he received months ago from the group of 24 academics; and

(4) further appeals to the President to hold discussions with other Afrikaans and Afrikaner groups and organisations, such as the Group of 63, Praag and the FAK.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Next on the list is the New … ANC. [Laughter.] Please continue, sir, despite the laughter.

Mr M H FAZZIE: Thank you for calling me a member of the new ANC, Mr Chair.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: You look new to me, sir! Please continue. Mnu M H FAZZIE: Mhlali ngamphambili, ndenza isaziso sokuba xa iphinda ihlala le Ndlu ndiza kwenza isiphakamiso egameni le-ANC:

Sokuba le Ndlu -

(1) iqaphele ngemincili iphulo likaRhulumente wentando yesininzi lokuphucula iimeko zabasebenzi basemakhitshini;

(2) iqaphele ukuba ngoku sithethayo iphulo logayo-zimvo zabachaphazelekayo liqhuba ngesantya esincomekayo eMpuma Koloni;

(3) iqaphele ukuba abasebenzi basemakhitshini nabasezifama baphantsi kwengcinezelo noxhaphazo olukhulu;

(4) iwancome amanyathelo …

[Laphela ixesha.] [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa notice of motion follows.)

[Mr M H FAZZIE: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes with appreciation the campaign by this democratic Government to improve the working conditions of domestic workers;

(2) notes that, as we speak, consultation with relevant stakeholders is taking place at a commendable rate in the Eastern Cape;

(3) notes that domestic workers and farmworkers work under oppressive and exploitative conditions;

(4) commends the steps …

[Time expired.] [Applause.]]

Dr J T DELPORT: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die DP sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis - (1) kennis neem -

   (a)  van die oproep deur Cosas dat Afrikaans geskrap moet word as 'n
       onderrigmedium in staatskole;

   (b)  dat die Grondwet, in artikel 29, bepaal dat iedereen die reg het
       om aan openbare onderwysinrigtings onderrig te ontvang in die
       amptelike taal wat hy of sy verkies, waar sodanige onderwys
       redelikerwys prakties moontlik is; en

   (c)  Afrikaans een van die amptelike tale is;

(2) die oproep deur Cosas as rassisties, onverdraagsaam en te kwader trou veroordeel; en

(3) die Regering oproep om te verseker dat onderwys in staatskole aangebied word in die taal wat die leerders verkies.

[Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Dr J T DELPORT: Mr Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the DP:

That the House -

(1) notes -

   (a)  the call by Cosas that Afrikaans be scrapped as a medium of
       instruction in state schools;

   (b)  that section 29 of the Constitution provides that everyone has
       the right to receive education in public educational
       institutions in the official language of his or her choice,
       where such education is reasonably practicable; and

   (c)  that Afrikaans is one of the official languages;

(2) condemns the call by Cosas as racist, intolerant and in bad faith; and

(3) calls on the Government to ensure that education in state schools is offered in the language which the learners prefer. [Interjections.]]

Mr H J BEKKER: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move:

That the House expresses its concurrence with and support for the announcement by the Minister of Finance that he will not agree to Nedbank’s attempted take-over of Standard Bank.

Mr T M GONIWE: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) expresses serious misgivings about the racist poster campaign of the DP in the traditionally white, conservative areas of Cape Town;

(2) believes that the intention of this campaign is to demonise the ANC and black people in general in the eyes and minds of the conservative white electorate;

(3) further believes that to liken the ANC to Zimbabwe is cleverly crafted hate speech designed to sharpen racial fears …

Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I believe that the entire statement that the hon member has read so far deals with racism, referring to the DP members as racist, and I believe that that is absolutely unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, a precedent has been set in the House by the Speaker. That was not a reference to a particular party member. It has been allowed in this House in the past and I will follow the precedent in this regard.

Mr T M GONIWE: Chairperson, I repeat:

That the House -

(2) believes that the intention of this campaign is to demonise the ANC and black people in general …

Mr M J ELLIS: You are demons!

Mr T M GONIWE:

… in the eyes and minds of the conservative white electorate;

(3) further believes that to liken the ANC to Zimbabwe is cleverly crafted hate speech designed to sharpen racial fears;

(4) condemns the DP …

[Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mnr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag sal voorstel:

Dat die Huis -

(1) met kommer kennis neem van die jongste bespiegelinge dat die Appèlhof van Bloemfontein na Johannesburg kan verskuif;

(2) kennis neem dat Bloemfontein sedert 1910 die trotse en waardige regterlike hoofstad van Suid-Afrika is en die verskuiwing van die Appèlhof onder meer ekonomiese en kultuur-historiese gevolge gaan inhou;

(3) die Regering herinner aan die versekering wat die Adjunkminister vir Justisie en Staatkundige Ontwikkeling, me Gillwald, op 20 Augustus 1999 gegee het dat die Appèlhof nie verskuif gaan word nie; en

 5) kennis neem dat die Nuwe NP die Minister vir Justisie en
    Staatkundige Ontwikkeling versoek om dit te bevestig. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move:

That the House -

(1) notes with concern the most recent rumours that the Appeal Court may be moved from Bloemfontein to Johannesburg;

(2) notes that since 1910 Bloemfontein has been the proud and dignified judicial capital of South Africa and that the relocation of the Appeal Court will, inter alia, have economic and cultural-historic consequences;

(3) reminds the Government of the assurance given by the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, Ms Gillwald, on 20 August 1999, that the Appeal Court would not be relocated; and

(4) notes that the New NP requests the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to confirm this.]

Mr B MTHEMBU: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes reports of a secret meeting between the Angolan government and Unita over the weekend in Mozambique;

(2) believes that this meeting could mark a major breakthrough between the two sides, thus paving the way for the peaceful resolution of the conflict in Angola;

(3) commends both parties for holding exploratory talks; and

(4) calls on these parties to work tirelessly for a peaceful solution to the conflict in Angola.

[Applause.]

Ms C C MAHLALELA: Chairperson, I give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:

That the House -

(1) notes that -

   (a)  economic wealth in rural areas and former homelands is set to
       receive a major boost if the Government succeeds in getting a
       range of private sector joint ventures; and

   (b)  the people in rural areas need joint venture equity partners to
       meet their needs and create jobs;

(2) believes that -

   (a)  projects of this nature can offer partnership opportunities to
       investors, communities and farmworkers; and

   (b)  such projects can also empower people in rural areas and improve
       the quality of life of the rural poor; and

(3) calls on the private sector to make resources available for rural development.

             CONDOLENCES ON THE DEATH OF PRESIDENT ASSAD

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:

That the House -

(1) notes with regret the death of President Hafez el Assad of Syria;

(2) wishes to send its sincere condolences to his family and to the people of Syria;

(3) further notes the firm and constructive role he has played in finding a just solution to the problems encountered in the Middle East; and

(4) expresses the hope that his successor will continue and take further President Assad’s efforts to conclude an enduring peace in the Middle East.

Agreed to.

                      2006 SOCCER WORLD CUP BID

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr J J DOWRY: Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:

That the House -

(1) desires that Fifa should give favourable consideration to South Africa’s bid to host the 2006 Soccer World Cup in our country; and (2) expresses the hope, as this decision will finally be taken on 6 July 2000 whilst the House will be in recess, that this decision will be in favour of the Republic of South Africa.

Agreed to.

                   PRECEDENCE TO ORDERS OF THE DAY

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:

That draft resolution No 1 on today’s Order Paper stand over until all the other items on the Order Paper have been dealt with.

Agreed to.

      EXTENSION OF TRIAL-RUN PERIOD OF QUESTIONS FOR ORAL REPLY

                         (Draft Resolution)

Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Chairperson, I hereby move the draft resolution printed on the Order Paper in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, as follows:

That -

(a) notwithstanding the resolution adopted by the House on 16 March 2000, the period for the trial run of questions for oral reply be extended until 31 October 2000; and

(b) the revised guidelines for the extended trial period, as amended by the Chief Whip’s Forum, be published in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports.

Chairperson, when the ANC came into Government for the first time in 1994, we knew that we had to transform Parliament as an institution. Not only did we have to change the nature of Parliament from being an institute of oppression, repression and depression with its portraits of dour, dead white men, its barrier to public participation and its mystique which made it impossible for the wider public to comprehend the complexity of its procedures, but there was also a great temptation to pull apart all the procedures and ways in which Parliament functioned. However, the ANC took a step back. We said: Before we tear everything apart, let us understand this very complex and often undemocratic dinosaur, so that we can take out what does not work and replace it with what does work to best enable us to carry out our mandate.

One area that has occupied a great deal of our attention over the past two years has been the reform of questions. We looked at international practice, and we looked at what was good in the old system and what was not. On this basis, we proposed reforms. The new system of questions is working. Yes, there are problems and it needs fine-tuning, but the reality is that question time is livelier. The supplementaries are challenging, our Ministers and members have to think on their feet, and the response that we, the ANC, are getting from the voters tells us that we are on the right track.

This system is the result of extensive discussion and consultation between parties. It was not imposed unilaterally. That is not the ANC’s style or principle for reform and transformation. The discussion between parties continues. The ANC knows the concerns of the opposition parties. The DP believes that the majority party gets too many bites at the cherry, and that its questions are sweetheart questions. They believe that the new system gives the ANC an advantage, but it is the voters of South Africa who have given us the advantage that we enjoy in this House. [Applause.]

Before going further, let us look at the facts. The fact is that under the new system, in a complete cycle, the ANC gets less than half of the questions. We have never asked for the full proportion due to us for questions, although we comprise 66% of the total number of members of this House. [Interjections.]

Of course, we must listen to the concerns of the small parties, parties that have so little electoral support that they have only one or two members in the House. They represent important voices in the community, and our electoral system is designed to give a chance for those voices to be heard. But those voices cannot be heard at the expense of the voters who elected the ANC. It is the ANC that they entrusted with their concerns. The opposition, as a whole, is already getting more than half of the questions. I say to Mr Ellis that I am not even talking about supplementary questions. He does not even know how to add up his sums. [Interjections.] The opposition must sit together and work out how best to share their time. They cannot expect us to be a sugar daddy who dispenses largesse.

I do not wish this debate to become a political battle, but the fact is that, while the leader of the DP is officially known as the Leader of the Opposition, he is, in fact, only the leader of his own party. The opposition must co-operate with each other. They must share out their time between themselves. The hon Leon must earn his title of Leader of the Opposition by leading all the opposition parties to reach a position of co- operation with regard to questions.

The opposition parties must lay a proposal upon the Table that addresses the concerns of all the parties. Perhaps they should come to us to learn how to achieve consensus and co-operation, because consensus is the hallmark of the ANC. [Interjections.] In the same way that the opposition parties seem unable to reach agreement in the political terrain, they are unable to reach agreement on institutional arrangements. We, the ANC, are always ready to accommmodate the needs of others. We give away 25% of our speaking time to the small parties. I want to tell Mrs Camerer that we have reached an agreement on notices of motion which is to our disadvantage, but we do this because we understand the needs of small parties. However, we cannot further disadvantage our own individual members in favour of small parties. [Interjections.]

We cannot help getting annoyed when a small party reneges on an agreement. Here I refer specifically to what happened when the ACDP called for a division last Wednesday night. We know that ``thou shalt not lie’’ is not one of the ten commandments, but an agreement is a matter of honour. [Applause.] When these things happen, hard-won trust goes out the door.

Now it is up to the opposition parties to sit together and work out how best they can manage their more-than-fair share of question time. The majority party will be only too happy to assist in implementing an agreement that gives all opposition parties their fair share. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Before Mr Mike Ellis goes to the podium, members must remember that, ``Thou shalt not ever lie in Parliament’’ is unparliamentary. Please continue, sir. [Interjections.] [Laughter.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, thank you very much indeed. I want to say that that was certainly quite a fighting speech from the hon Geoff Doidge and, as he well knows, the DP thoroughly enjoys a fight.

One of the things he said was very interesting. For example, he said that what the ANC has done is to replace things that did not work with things that do work. I want to say to him that although I have been told that I cannot say ``you lie’’ to hon Geoff Doidge and I will not say it, it certainly is not quite the truth.

Quite frankly, the old system of questions worked infinitely better than the new system of questions. [Interjections.] I also want to say that the tone of the hon Mr Doidge’s speech makes it quite clear that the new system of questions suits his party, and he does not really give a damn whether it suits other parties or not. [Interjections.] A week or two ago, I attended a meeting of the Whips of the parties to review the present setup with regard to oral questions. It was quite a good meeting. Even the hon John Jeffery behaved himself to some extent. I believe that some constructive discussion took place as to the strengths and weaknesses of the current process. [Interjections.] I also believe that some consensus was reached with regard to improvements in the process. As the motion reads, these improvements or amendments will be published in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports of this Parliament.

However, all this does not mean that the DP can support this motion, because at the end of the day, we do not believe that this new questions procedure is in the best interests of Parliament. It certainly is not in the best in interests of opposition parties.

I want to say that we are being asked this afternoon to vote on revised guidelines, despite the fact that these have not yet been printed. Our Chief Whips have had the advantage of discussing these revisions, but they have not yet been made available to party members, so we cannot ask them to vote on something they have not yet seen. I do not understand where the ANC comes from or how they can seriously believe that we can ask our members to do this.

Now, they might behave in this way; they might be the party that blindfolds their members and leads them down the garden path, over the cliff or wherever. But that is not the way the DP treats its members. We also have to trust that the ANC have not further revised the amendments that we agreed to, in order to suit their own agenda. I am sure, knowing the hon Geoff Doidge the way I do, that he would not have dreamt of doing such a disgusting thing, but, quite frankly, with the ANC one never quite knows.

However, the point is that the DP cannot accept this behaviour; we cannot accept this motion. Well, I suppose I should really be pointing fingers at the hon John Jeffery, because he really is the serious culprit in this whole matter. [Laughter.] There are a host of other matters relating to this whole new system of questions that need to be addressed as well. Firstly, it is unbelievably overbureaucratic and confusing. I challenge any party here to say that that is not the case. It takes an enormous amount of administration, not only for the parliamentary staff, but also for parties, and one cannot say that the outcome is worth it at the end of the day. Secondly, with questions being asked in three weekly cycles in clusters, this severely limits the rights of MPs to constantly hold the Cabinet to account, and it is something that the opposition parties desperately want to do. Furthermore, the cluster system itself has serious flaws and the debacle today - with so many Ministers away from the cluster, albeit for good reasons - is an example of how this cluster system just does not work. The point is, if a Minister cannot or refuses to attend the House on a date when his or her cluster is meeting, the questions addressed to him or her are often not replied to, but stand over, and the opportunity to put supplementary questions to the Minister is removed.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a classic example of this. I do not believe that she has been in the House once when her cluster has been questioned. [Interjections.] Yes, believe me, that is the finest excuse that I have ever heard - she is working! My word, she also has to work in this House and become answerable to Parliament, because that is really and truly what her job is all about. Mr Momberg knows that as well as I do.

Furthermore, no provision is made to deal with these questions prior to the next time they are clustered. At best, despite the three-week cycle, the proof is that clusters come up on an average only every five or six weeks. This is absolutely ridiculous. We just do not get the opportunity to put questions to Ministers. There can be no doubt that the cluster system needs to be revised. It is just not working.

But there are a whole lot of problems we have with this new system of questions, as well. Written questions to the President are neglected, because they cannot be transferred to oral, and the President, therefore, cannot be held to account on those issues. Oral question time itself, quite frankly, is often dull and this afternoon was a classic example. It is often dull and overregulated, as answers to supplementary questions cannot be challenged by the questioner. Hopefully, the new system might look at that a little bit.

Fewer, rather than more, questions are dealt with during the two-hour period than was the case in the 30 minutes under the old rules. That is a fact that even Mr John Jeffery does concede. The ANC questions are sometimes withdrawn at the last minute and, therefore, act merely as a blocking mechanism to reduce further the number of opposition questions. The hon John Jeffery tried to talk about the fact that we had complained that they were nice, little, simple questions to Ministers. Quite frankly, the questions that the Ministers are asked by the ANC are appalling. Its members look the same, sound the same and talk with the same tongue, and it makes no difference. It makes no difference whether it is John Jeffery, Geoff Doidge or John Doidge - it really does not! [Laughter.] They speak with the same tongue, and that is all that matters to us.

This whole system is appalling. We have already asked - and the hon Geoff Doidge knows this - for a trial period where interpellations are brought back in a revised system. We sincerely hope that the ANC will be prepared to grant such a system a trial run in the future. [Interjections.] I wish to tell Mr De Lange that the point is that we cannot and will not vote for this particular motion today. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I have listened carefully to Mr Mike Ellis, and what he wants is to ask a lot of questions. [Interjections.] I just want to tell him what the wise man once said. He said: ``A fool can ask more questions than any wise man can ever answer.’’ [Laughter.] [Applause.]

We support the draft resolution. The experiment has been going on for about three months. The question is: Which system of questions is best? [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: You are asking too many questions, Koos!

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: I am the wise man and that hon member is a fool. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

With the old system, a member did not have the opportunity … [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Koos Van der Merwe, please resume your seat. Hon member, on what point are you rising?

Mr M J ELLIS: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order. I certainly know that it is not parliamentary for any member to call another member a fool. [Laughter.] The speaker himself is a fool. [Interjections.]

Mr H J BEKKER: Chairperson, on a further point of order: Is it in order that a fool be insulted? [Laughter.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! That is not a point of order. Please sit down! [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I withdraw the statement that Mr Mike Ellis is a fool. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, just withdraw the words without repeating them. [Laughter.] Just say: ``I withdraw.’’ [Laughter.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I withdraw and if necessary, I apologise. [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: [Inaudible.]

Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: He says he is going to get me.

The point is: Which system works the best? With the old system, one asked a question and could follow it up, but one was limited to asking a question. One could not make a political statement. One could not express an opinion, which one can now do. I can now stand up, and in the 60 seconds at my disposal, have a go at the Minister, make political statements, express an opinion and then ask my question. So, it is a great improvement on the old system. [Interjections.]

It is much more exciting now to have questions in this way. Therefore, it has almost become a sort of a mini-interpellation system. [Interjections.] Previously, we had to listen to monotonous prepared speeches by members, especially during interpellations. I once saw a Minister here reading something for two or three minute. A member got up here and read out his prepared speech of the previous night for two minutes. The Minister got up, and went on with her speech. Then the gentleman also went on with his prepared speech of the previous night. That was very boring! [Interjections.]

Now we can have people who can really be creative and do things on the spur of the moment. I can understand that the DP does not like it, because they conform to the old style. They do not understand these things. [Laughter.] [Applause.] They are, as we say in Afrikaans, ``uit die oude doos’’ [old- fashioned].

We support the draft resolution. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

Mnr J J DOWRY: Mnr die Voorsitter, die Nuwe NP steun die verlenging van hierdie proeflopie, omdat ons van mening is dat die nuwe stelsel vir die beantwoording van mondelinge vrae baie voordele inhou en verder ontwikkel behoort te word. Ons is veral verheug oor die wyse waarop opposisiepartye se voorstelle geakkommodeer is ten einde konsensus te bereik. Die swepery het op ‘n deurlopende grondslag die nuwe stelsel gemoniteer, en ná ‘n dringende gesprek oor die aangeleentheid is besluit om sekere wysigings aan die riglyne vir vrae aan te bring. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[Mr J J DOWRY: Mr Chairman, the New NP supports the extension of this trial run, because we are of the view that the new system to reply to oral questions has many advantages and should be developed further. We are particularly pleased about the manner in which the suggestions of opposition parties have been accommodated in order to reach consensus. The Whippery monitored the new system on an ongoing basis, and after urgent discussions on the matter it was decided to effect certain amendments to the guidelines for questions.]

Some of these amendments contain very positive aspects. In a bid to increase the number of questions that could be answered, it was decided to reduce the number of supplementary questions from five to four in order to save some time and to limit supplementary questions to only one question at a time. It was also decided that Ministers who had missed their cluster should not be given the opportunity to answer questions on the following question day in another cluster. The basis for this decision is that Ministers from one cluster should not take up the time of Ministers from another cluster.

The previous guidelines provided that the time for replying to a supplementary question would be limited to two minutes unless the presiding officer was of the opinion that the answer was sufficiently important to necessitate more time. In practice this discretion led to a situation where Ministers very often replied to supplementary questions for more than two minutes. The revised guidelines do not allow for discretion in this regard any longer and this will mean that Ministers and Deputy Ministers answering questions will be limited to two minutes for replying to a supplementary question. This will save a tremendous amount of time and will allow for more questions to be answered.

At the suggestion of the New NP it was agreed that the Deputy President would answer questions only every second week, thus ensuring that he was not in the same Ministerial cluster for two consecutive slots. This will also ensure that more questions will be answered in the specific slot.

Daar is egter nog enkele aangeleenthede wat behoorlik geëvalueer moet word en moontlike aanpassings tot gevolg kan hê. Daar moet veral gekyk word na ‘n manier hoe Ministers wat min vrae ontvang en beantwoord ook beter beoordeel kan word, en meer betrek kan word by die vraetyd. Die Nuwe NP sou ook graag wou hê dat daar voorsiening gemaak word vir enkele vrae waarvoor daar geen vooraf kennisgewing nodig is nie, sodat dringende aangeleenthede op ‘n spoedeisende basis gehanteer kan word.

Die mate van sukses van hierdie nuwe stelsel hang grootliks af van Ministers se teenwoordigheid om vrae te beantwoord wanneer hul vrae aan die beurt kom. Om hierdie rede is dit totaal onaanvaarbaar vir ‘n Minister om op kort kennisgewing aan te dui dat hy of sy nie beskikbaar sal wees nie, want dit beïnvloed ook die prioritisering deur politieke partye van hul vrae aan Ministers. Die teenwoordigheid van Ministers behoort verpligtend gemaak te word.

‘n Ander kommerwekkende aspek bly steeds die beantwoording van skriftelike vrae wat volgens die bestaande reëls binne ‘n vasgestelde tyd beantwoord moet word. Ons ervaar in ‘n toenemende mate dat Ministers nie aan hierdie reël gehoor gee nie en dat ons dan gedwing word om skriftelike vrae te laat oorplaas op die Ordelys vir mondelinge beantwoording. Met die voorbehoud dat die stelsel verder gemoniteer en geëvalueer moet word, en die nodige regstellings aangebring moet word, steun die Nuwe NP hierdie voorstel. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[However, there are still a few matters that should be evaluated properly and could result in possible adjustments. Specific consideration should be given to a way in which Ministers who receive and answer few questions can also be assessed better, and involved to a greater degree in question time. The New NP would also like provision to be made for a few questions for which no prior notification is required, so that urgent matters could be dealt with expeditiously.

The degree of success of this new system depends largely on the presence of Ministers to answer questions when their questions come around. For this reason it is totally unacceptable for a Minister to indicate at short notice that he or she will not be available, because this also influences prioritising of their questions to Ministers by political parties. The presence of Ministers should be made compulsory.

Another alarming aspect still remains the replies to written questions that, according to the existing rules, must be replied to within an appointed time. We are experiencing to an increasing extent that Ministers are not complying with this rule and that we are then forced to have written questions transferred to the Order Paper for oral reply. On condition that the system should be further monitored and evaluated, and that the necessary rectifications must be made, the New NP supports this motion.] Mr T ABRAHAMS: Chairperson, a very important principle has been adopted here and it is something that we hope will become established practice in the future. Rules of procedure are not cast in stone. Certainly, they became outdated as circumstances in Parliament changed, and needed to be modified. The proposal came that we should have a trial run to test out a set of guidelines which would bring changes to the procedure of questions. The UDM came out in full support of that principle of having a trial run.

Today, after the Whippery have considered certain amendments to those guidelines, the motion that is on the table, again receives the full support the UDM. We believe that a further extension to the trial run is fitting, because even the modifications that have been arrived at need to be tested first before we start tampering with the rules of procedure and making these changes more permanent.

We have no real interest in whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs escapes answering questions more easily now than in the past, because she is never around to answer questions anyway. However, it is difficult to answer questions in Parliament when one is not in the country anyway. So that problem has to be addressed in another way. We are pleased that this principle has been established. We would have preferred to see the Deputy Minister who, we know, is quite happy to answer most of the questions that are flung at him on a weekly basis. We know that his shoulders are broad enough to carry that load, but we do not think that it is fair that he should have so many questions. We would have preferred to see a special cluster set aside once a month for the Deputy President, to match the three clusters that exist at the moment. However, after compromise consensus was reached, we were convinced that the New NP argument that the hon Deputy President should answer questions only every second week should be accepted. We are comfortable with having accepted that compromise.

One of the weaknesses of the previous system was that because, I suppose, there were so few parties in Parliament, it was easy for any one party to swamp the questions office with questions, to the detriment of other parties. Now, for the first time, the smaller opposition parties, the one- man parties as well, have a better chance at having questions answered. We fully support this motion. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mrs R M SOUTHGATE: Mr Chairperson, hon Deputy President, it is actually very heartening and encouraging to see the Deputy President in the House, and I am looking for our Ministers. None of them are here, sir. So, thank you. [Interjections.]

Seeing that we are dealing with questions, the ACDP provisionally supports the extension of the period for the trial run of questions. However, we do appeal to the Speaker to ensure that all parties are given an equal opportunity to put follow-up questions.

The new system has many advantages and should be further improved. The system has the potential to afford minority parties in the opposition an opportunity to engage the executive in meaningful debate, and also debates are not dominated, Mr Ellis, by the bigger opposition parties.

We are concerned, however, that the relevant Ministers are not at times available to answer questions. And some Ministers are unwilling to debate issues but rather respond with short replies and I think that needs to be worked on. It is actually very discouraging to see the replies that one gets from some Ministers.

I would encourage the Whips, at the end of this trial period, to assess the question times again. As I said, we provisionally support the extension.

Dr C P MULDER: Mr Chairperson, the fact of the matter is that the motion before the House today only asks us to give an extension with regard to the trial period. It does not ask Parliament to amend the rules. So, technically, one could ask: How can anyone be against the idea of just extending the trial period?

However, the facts are a bit different. There are certainly a lot of improvements with regard to question time. The point that Mr Van der Merwe made is a very valid one. One can now make a political statement, which is quite valid. However, the problem is that because, under normal circumstances, one is entitled to only one follow-up question, one cannot really enter into a debate with the hon Minister in respect of his initial reply.

The other problem is that, what we now need, in terms of the rules, is a different allocation of time. Sometime during the week an hour should be set aside, separate from the new improved question time, for interpellations as well, and if those debates are not the way they should be, they should be improved. Furthermore, the fact is that although this is an improvement, there are numerous problems with regard to the present question time.

When I came to the House this afternoon I had a look at the motion and I intended to support it, because how can one be against the extension of the trial run. But I must say that after the performance of the executive today

I am not reflecting on the hon the Deputy President, who answered his questions - I am sorry, I cannot support this motion, because the system does not work. One cannot expect an hon Minister to answer questions that do not pertain to his own portfolio. He can come here, which happened today, and read out a prepared statement, but he is not in a position to answer any follow-up questions in a meaningful manner. It does not make sense.

So, in technical terms, one could support the system - and there are very positive aspects in it - but what happened in practice today tells us that we need to stop this system immediately and overhaul it before we continue one moment longer. [Time expired.]

Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson, hon members, the majority party conceived of a question system that was meant to replace what in their opinion was archaic and dull, because interpellants brought with them prepared notes which they read out after the response of the Minister. The new system of questions has, unfortunately, not lived up to expectations either because, in one way or another, it has also degenerated to a point where members present lengthy monologues as supplementary questions.

We maintain that if supplementary questions were questions, more time could be saved and more questions could be answered. As such, that would give the parties lower down the rungs of the ladder a chance to have their questions answered and not be put off from week to week.

While we appreciate the tight schedule of Ministers, we would like them to do their utmost not to miss their clusters, so that there will be no need for questions to stand over or for Ministers to say: ``I did not get the brief on that one. It is not part of the answer, because I am standing in for some other Minister.’’

However, we commend the presiding officers for their forbearance under trying circumstances, because they have to make a decision on how long a member has in which to speak. It has been very difficult, but they have acquitted themselves admirably under the circumstances and, as such, we are hard put to support the continuation of this whole exercise.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Piet Mathebe, please resume your seat.

An HON MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Mrs P DE LILLE: Chairperson …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Could you wait before you proceed with your speech, hon member. Thank you, sir. [Interjections.] Please proceed, hon member.

Mrs P DE LILLE: Chairperson, Deputy President, I want to support the motion. But what I would like to raise is a completely new angle today. I think that what sometimes makes question time boring is that political parties ask the same questions. We need a sifting mechanism whereby if a person has asked a certain question and the same question is asked by another political party, the person asking the question must be told that that question has already asked, so that people can become more creative and ask more new questions. We are getting boring questions over and over again. I think we need that kind of sifting mechanism somewhere in our system.

The other matter is that I still believe that we need to look at how we can transform interpellations. But interpellations must come back even if it is just for an hour, together with questions. So if we see that there are weaknesses there and we decide to go back to interpellations later on, we will also have transformed them. And I think that will make a big difference to the whole system of questions. But, in general, we support the motion, because there are advantages for the smaller parties. It is the only time in this House that we are equal with the big parties and that we can ask the same questions for the same amount of time, and we appreciate that.

Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, I think I am going to make history in this House today because it does not often happen that somebody changes his mind in this House on a matter of any kind. Whereas on 16 March I opposed the new system, today I am supporting it. [Applause.] Let us hope that in due course the ANC will also be open enough to change its mind on more crucial matters, matters so often stated eloquently by the AEB in this House.

Die rede waarom ek hierdie voorstel wil steun, is dat daar eerstens groter soepelheid is. Die interpellasies het dinge in ‘n keurslyf gedruk. [Tussenwerpsels.] Soos mnr Koos van der Merwe dit gestel het, vooraf uitgewerkte vrae en antwoorde het mekaar eentonig afgewissel.

Ek het bedenkings gehad oor die sweetheart questions'' - ek noem dit siembamba-vragies - van ANC-lede. Dié vrae is nog daar, maar nou kry die opposisie die geleentheid - en dit is my tweede rede - om met opvolgvrae die volume 'n bietjie oop te draai, en dan is diesweetie pie’’ daarmee heen.

Derdens is daar meer geleentheid vir kleiner partye. Die AEB het in nege maande onder die ou stelsel net een geleentheid vir ‘n interpellasie gehad. Onder die nuwe stelsel het die AEB alreeds vier vrae gestel, en ek dink dit was almal ``jolly’’ goeie vrae! Vierdens is daar groter interaksie en die hele debat is lewendiger.

Daar is nog probleme, maar ek dink dit is eie aan al twee stelsels. Dit is nie die ratverandering wat die probleme veroorsaak het nie. Ministers sal altyd afwesig wees, of dit nou vir vrae of interpellasies is.

Ek wil voorstel dat die opposisie toegelaat word om ‘n opvolgantwoord ná die Minister te gee. Ons kan gerus ‘n slag die lid die laaste sê gee en nie altyd die Minister nie. Laastens het ek net gewonder of ons nie dalk hierdie verdelingsknoppies op ‘n manier kan gebruik om spreekbeurte by die Speaker aan te vra nie. Die eerste vyf wat registreer, kan dan die vyf opvolgvrae stel. Dan hoef sy nie so rond te kyk om te sien wie is eerste nie.

Die tweede deel van die voorstel kan ek ongelukkig nie steun nie, want ek weet nie wat die voorstelle is nie. As ek dit kry, sal ons dit dadelik oorweeg. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The reason why I want to support this motion is, firstly, that there is greater flexibility. The interpellations forced matters into a straitjacket. [Interjections.] As Mr Koos van der Merwe put it, previously worked out questions and answers followed on one another monotonously.

I had my doubts about the sweetheart questions'' - I call themsiembamba questions’’ - of members of the ANC. These questions are still in evidence, but now the opposition is getting the opportunity - and this is my second reason - to turn up the volume somewhat by means of follow-up questions, and then the ``sweetheart’’ has had it.

Thirdly, there are more opportunities for smaller parties. The AEB, during nine months under the old system, had only one opportunity for an interpellation. Under the new system the AEB has already put four questions, and I think that they were all jolly good questions! Fourthly, there is more interaction and the entire debate is more lively.

There are still problems, but I think that is the case in respect of both systems. It is not the change of gear that caused the problems. Ministers will always be absent, whether questions or interpellations are being posed.

I want to suggest that the opposition should be allowed to respond with a follow-up answer after the Minister has spoken. We may as well give the member, and not the Minister, the last word for a change. Finally, I have been wonderking whether we could perhaps use these division buttons to request that the Speaker give us a turn to speak. The first five that register may then ask the five follow-up questions. Then she need not look around to see who was first.

Unfortunately I cannot support the second part of the motion, because I do not know what the proposals are. The moment I get it, we shall consider it. [Time expired.]]

Mr M A MANGENA: Hon Chairperson, the new Question Time is better, but a few areas still need scrutiny. Firstly, not as many questions as was hoped get answered orally every week. Secondly, many parties are not able to ask their own questions and they are therefore forced to tag on to the questions of others. Well, that is fine, but it is not as satisfying as asking one’s own questions. Thirdly, Ministers are not always able to make themselves available to answer questions when their clusters are due, leaving very uncomfortable gaps. This needs to be looked at and could be refined in the process of reassessing this system.

An extension of the period of experimentation is therefore a very good idea. It will allow all of us to observe the system and refine it further and make it better. Azapo will support the motion. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Motion agreed to (Democratic Party and Freedom Front dissenting).

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATION - ICASA COUNCIL