National Assembly - 29 September 2000
FRIDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2000
____
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 09:01.
The Deputy Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr L T LANDERS: Mr 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 that -
(a) President Thabo Mbeki and President Olusegun Obasanjo are due to
meet this weekend to finalise a multipronged plan designed to
shore up Africa's economic development; and
(b) key components of this plan include strategies to lure direct
investment to the continent, substantial reduction of Africa's
external indebtedness, radical reform of aid, reshaping
international financial institutions and bolstering the transfer
of technology and knowledge in the continent;
(2) welcomes this initiative as this will contribute positively to the rebirth of the African continent; and
(3) joins the people of Nigeria in the celebration of their liberation …
[Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr J SELFE: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:
That the House -
(1) congratulates former President Nelson Mandela on the extremely sober and realistic thoughts expressed in his interview with the Daily News in which he criticised and rapped President Mbeki over the knuckles on three major policy issues by -
(a) endorsing the commonly held view that HIV is the cause of Aids;
(b) calling on President Mbeki to meet frequently with the Leader of
the Opposition, Tony Leon; and
(c) saying that, after 20 years in power, someone should tell
President Robert Mugabe that it is time to retire;
(2) calls on members of the ANC and the executive to learn from these wise sentiments which came from former President Mandela; and
(3) urges President Mbeki rather to accept the advice from his predecessor than to stick to his warped and unscientific views, which are not only detrimental to South Africa’s image abroad, but also adversely affect the people of South Africa.
[Applause.]
Mr J H SLABBERT: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) our democratic Government is totally committed to combating
joblessness and alleviating the ravages of poverty; and
(b) easy-to-start-up ventures requiring very modest capital are hard
to find and difficult to sustain; and
(2) urges the Ministers for Agriculture and Land Affairs and of Trade and Industry to encourage the keeping of honey bees, as South Africa has the capacity to triple its production of honey, beeswax and a range of other products derived from beehives.
Ms H F MALEBANA: Mr 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 that Botswana will be celebrating its independence on 30 September 2000;
(2) believes that celebrations of this nature serve as a constant reminder of the history of the struggle for liberation in Southern Africa, and the challenges facing all countries in the region to combat poverty, malnutrition and HIV/Aids; and
(3) joins the people of Botswana in celebrating their victory against British colonial rule.
[Applause.]
Dr P J RABIE: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes the low levels of business and consumer confidence prevalent in the South African economy, in the light of the following:
(a) according to the Bureau for Economic Research's second report,
business confidence has dropped to 36 points in the second
quarter of this year, from 45 points in the previous quarter;
and
(b) consumer confidence has plunged by 16 index points, the largest
decline in a single quarter since 1984, and the first
pessimistic response since before the 1994-election from black
consumer respondents;
(2) urges the ANC-Cosatu-SACP alliance to take note of this alarming situation regarding the lack of confidence in South Africa’s economic wellbeing by business and consumer bodies alike; and
(3) calls on the hon the President, in the light of this, to recommit himself to responsible governance.
Mr S NAIDOO: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) notes that the provisions in respect of the Maintenance Act, Act 99 of 1998, are being abused as a result of other conflicting and mutually overriding legislation, namely section 43 of the Supreme Court Act, Act 59 of 1959, on Rules of the Supreme Court versus the Maintenance Act, Act 99 of 1998; and
(2) calls on the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to -
(a) place a restriction on the number of applications that can be
brought before a particular forum within the specified period of
time; and
(b) consider the confining of disputes to a particular forum, for
example, a directive that all maintenance-related disputes be
deliberated over by the maintenance courts, including the taking
on appeal of any such decision.
Mr N E MAGUBANE: Mr 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 the bold initiatives by the Deputy President to engage opposition parties on issues of national importance;
(2) believes that this move by the Deputy President is important in working towards national reconciliation and nation-building; and
(3) calls on the opposition parties to utilise this initiative and play a constructive role in the reconstruction and development of our country.
[Applause.]
Ms C DUDLEY: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ACDP:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) reports indicate that South Africa is emerging as a key player
in the trafficking of children for sexual exploitation;
(b) those most at risk are girls between the ages of 4 and 17,
children from rural and urban areas in search of work or
survival, those who leave home because of poverty or sexual
abuse, those who run away from places of safety and those who
are orphans or living on the street;
(c) according to police, there is no such crime in South Africa as
child trafficking, and these offences therefore fall under
abduction and kidnapping; and
(d) a total of 4 663 kidnapping cases and 3 314 abduction cases were
reported last year;
(2) calls on Government to investigate reports that ex-military persons and police with links to high-ranking Government officials are implicated;
(3) notes with shock and horror that not only gangs, brothel owners, syndicates and agents are involved but even parents …
[Time expired.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die AEB sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis daarvan kennis neem dat -
(1) agbare lede versoek moet word om tydens debatte hulle te bepaal by die onderwerp onder bespreking;
(2) die onderwerp van bespreking nie misbruik moet word as ‘n kapstok van eie gedagtes oor sake wat nie ter tafel is nie;
(3) hierdie tendens in gister se debat weer duidelik geblyk het toe die meeste lede nie die verslag van die Konferensie oor Rassisme bespreek het nie, maar hul eie konferensie oor rassisme gehou het en mnr Barney Pityana nou nog nie weet wat die Parlement van sy konferensie dink nie;
(4) ‘n ander voorbeeld die debat is oor die verslag van ons afvaardiging na Zimbabwe toe lede se eie visioene en vergesigte oor wat noord van die Limpopo gebeur, bespreek is en nie die verslag nie; en
5) hierdie tendens veral voorkom by agbare lede van die ANC, wat
klaarblyklik heeltemal te veel tyd het om te praat en te min het om
te sê, en dan verplig voel om die Huis te trakteer op diskoerse oor
alles en nog wat. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.) [Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the AEB:
That the House notes that -
(1) hon members have to be requested during debates to confine themselves to the subject under discussion;
(2) the subject under discussion should not be abused as a peg on which to hang private opinions on matters that are not at issue;
(3) this tendency once again was clearly evident during yesterday’s debate, when most members did not discuss the report of the Conference on Racism, but held their own conference on racism and Mr Barney Pityana still does not know what Parliament thinks of his conference;
(4) another example was the debate on the report of our delegation to Zimbabwe, when hon members’ own visions and vistas on what is happening north of the Limpopo were discussed, but not the report; and
(5) this tendency is particularly prevalent among members of the ANC, who evidently have far too much speaking time and too little to say, and who then feel obliged to treat the House to discourses on just about anything.]
Mr J D ARENDSE: Mr 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 that -
(a) the UDM has placed an advertisement in the Daily Dispatch of 15
September 2000 asking ``all interested persons who would like to
stand as candidates in the local government elections'' to
contact them; and
(b) the UDM has diminished its initial support to virtually nothing
through a massive exodus caused by disillusionment about the
potential of the party; (2) calls on the UDM to declare whether they have any criteria for the
selection of candidates, or if any person from any political
persuasion may apply, or if they have any candidates at all; and
(3) congratulates the UDM for this unique touch of transparency and new dimension to equal opportunities for all.
[Laughter.] [Applause.]
Adv H C SCHMIDT: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Department of Correctional Services is grappling with the problem of overcrowding, in the light of the following:
(a) Cabinet approved a plan to release more than 18 000 prisoners
because overcrowding in prisons has reached a crisis point; and
(b) the country's prisons are already overcrowded by a staggering 71
887 prisoners;
(2) further notes that a brand new R350 million maximum security prison in the Eastern Cape that can hold up to 1 000 prisoners is standing empty due to officials arguing over who will pay for the finishing touches; and
(3) demands that the Minister of Correctional Services explain how, in the light of the above, problems have not been solved so that the prison can begin operating as soon as possible.
Mr M S M SIBIYA: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the price of crude oil, on account of inflexible demand, is
likely to go up and up; and
(b) individuals seeking to get to work and back will need a cheaper
alternative to public transport; and
(2) urges the Government to begin investing in research to develop, in partnership with major motor vehicle manufacturers, an electric car suitable for South African conditions.
Mr F T MASERUMULE: Mr 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 that the Gauteng Provincial Government has launched a project viability programme in an attempt to rescue municipalities from financial collapse, and improve financial management of these structures;
(2) believes that this initiative will play a crucial role in ensuring the smooth delivery of services in the affected communities;
(3) notes that this will ensure a smooth transition to the new councils which will take over after the local government elections; and
(4) commends the Gauteng government for embarking on this bold step, and believes that this reflects the commitment of the ANC to build a better life for all.
[Applause.]
Adv A H GAUM: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP and the Democratic Alliance:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) thousands of historically disadvantaged learners are currently
not realising their full potential on account of the fact that
their constitutional right to mother-tongue instruction is being
denied;
(b) it is a universally accepted principle in modern education that
a child should receive mother-tongue education;
(c) Unesco recommends that mother-tongue instruction be carried on
as long as possible;
(d) research has proved that the matric pass rate can be
substantially improved if the examination is written in the
mother tongue; and
(e) the cost of failure at school and the accompanying implications
far outweigh the cost of providing mother-tongue instruction;
and
(2) appeals to the Minister of Education to draft and make known, in the foreseeable future, a clear policy on and implementation timeframe for mother-tongue instruction in all our schools.
Mr T ABRAHAMS: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House - (1) notes that -
(a) South Africans at large are reeling from the news of another
increase in the price of fuel which is expected next week; and
(b) most alarming of the fuel price increases are those that affect
illuminating paraffin, which will increase by 34c a litre,
diesel, which will increase by 36c a litre, and petrol, which
will increase by 5c a litre; and
(2) calls on -
(a) the handful of oil-producing countries not to hold the world to
ransom and to follow the examples of Saudi Arabia, which has
decided to produce more oil, and the USA, which is releasing oil
reserves; and
(b) consumers in South Africa to expect matters to become worse
before they get better, and to use every means available to
conserve fuel.
Mr P F MBONGO: Mr 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 that -
(a) the Constitutional Court has ruled against a decision by South
African Airways (SAA) not to employ a cabin attendant, Jacques
Charl Hoffman, who is HIV-positive; and
(b) the actions by SAA violated his right to equality, which the
Constitution guarantees;
(2) believes that people living with HIV/Aids have inalienable rights and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and not to be discriminated against;
(3) welcomes the ruling delivered by Justice Sandile Ngcobo; and
(4) calls on the public to treat HIV-positive people with respect and as equals.
[Applause.]
UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Mr T D LEE: Chairperson, may I please address you on a point of order? While the hon James Selfe was presenting his brilliant motion, the hon Jannie Momberg referred to him as an ``aasvoël’’ [vulture]. I want to know whether that is parliamentary, and I want your ruling on the matter, sir. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I would like to ask Mr Jannie Momberg whether he used that word or that term.
Mr J H MOMBERG: Yes, I did call him ``‘n aasvoël’’, sir.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, please withdraw that term.
Mr J H MOMBERG: Chairperson, I withdraw it. [Laughter.] [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you. Are there any motions without notice?
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Chairperson, is it in order for the hon Lee to avail himself as the hon Selfe’s ``bobbejaan spanner’’ [monkey wrench]? [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I think we should leave that. Are there any motions without notice? [Interjections.]
Hon members, by agreement, we will proceed to the next Order of the Day. There will be only one debate on the seven Bills on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]
Mrs M P COETZEE-KASPER: Chairperson, I am sorry to interrupt you, but there is an echo in the sound system.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I will ask the Table staff to see what can be done to improve the acoustics, in order for hon members to be able to follow the debate without any impediment. COUNCIL FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT BILL
ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION BILL
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION BILL
ENGINEERING PROFESSION BILL
PROPERTY VALUERS PROFESSION BILL
PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONS BILL
QUANTITY SURVEYING PROFESSION BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Chairperson and hon members of Parliament, today marks an important juncture on a journey which started shortly after this country’s first democratic election in 1994. In that year my predecessor, the hon Jeff Radebe, appointed a forum called the Built Environment Forum to review the regulation of the professions that are active within the built environment. This initiative was born out of the necessity to mobilise the significant resources embodied within our professions to meet the challenges of our emerging democracy.
The review undertaken by the Built Environment Forum identified a number of deficiencies in existing regulations. The seven Bills before the House aim to overcome these deficiencies, to create a framework for the ongoing transformation and development of the professions, and to maximise the contribution of the professions to the social and economic challenges that are at the core of the Government’s delivery and development agenda.
The first Bill establishes an overarching Council for the Built Environment Professions to ensure co-ordination with Government and between the different professions. Four of the Bills re-enact the laws of the existing professional councils of engineers, architects, quantity surveyors and property valuers, all of which are administered by the Department of Public Works. The two remaining Bills establish new councils for two professions, project and construction management and landscape architects.
Professional expertise in our country is a national asset and should be managed as a scarce resource of high value. While this is a renewable resource, it is also one that is subject to deterioration if standards are allowed to decline or if interest in entering these professions as a career is not promoted.
The intrinsic value of the built environment professions lies in their essential role and function in social and economic development. The enabling legislation that is before hon members today seeks to promote this potential and to unlock the innovation and creativity of our professions to improve the quality of life of all South Africans.
Policies of previous governments limited the role of the professions to the serving of an elite, and subordinated it to the agenda of segregation that has degraded our built environment and continues to constitute a physical barrier to our objective of nation-building. In a society in which blacks were to remain poor and subordinate, there was no need to consider the need for access by the majority of our population to basic infrastructure, let alone to professional services.
Bantu education and job reservation also ensured that blacks would never enter these professions as architects or engineers, let alone as project managers. It is in this context that all key public-sector and private- sector stakeholders came together in the Built Environment Forum to oversee and engage in a comprehensive investigation into the statutory regulation of the professions active in the built environment in South Africa. This report, commissioned by the department and undertaken by the Human Sciences Research Council, formed the departure point of the policy that underpins our new legislation and that has engaged the full participation of stakeholders.
Because of the significance of the professions as an essential asset in our development agenda, it is important that I should highlight the depth of our investigation and the care that we have taken in finalising Government policy and draft legislation. With regard to initial investigation, invitations for submissions were sent to 228 stakeholder organisations. A total of 88 submissions were received and analysed. Requests for information were sent to 116 organisations in 23 countries.
An analysis of preliminary results was presented and debated at five meetings of the forum. With regard to policy and draft legislation, the debates of the forum informed the final report and provided the basis for the policy framework that was approved by all key stakeholders last year. The draft Bills were then individually discussed with the relevant professions.
In July 1999 I published a policy framework and draft legislation for public comment. In March 2000, taking cognisance of public comment, the draft Bills were appropriately amended and ultimately certified. Since then the legislation has been further refined by the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Public Works. Under the very able leadership of the chairperson, hon Inkosi Hlengwa, the portfolio committee conducted public hearings during June this year.
From all accounts, these public hearings were a great success, and inputs received promoted further debate on a number of complex issues. The constructive co-operation of all political parties represented made it possible to effect meaningful and incisive improvements to the Bills. I would therefore like to thank Inkosi Hlengwa and hon members of the committee for effecting these changes that have reinforced the spirit and intention of the legislation to appropriately balance the interests of the professions with those of the public.
I will now address the intentions of the seven Bills, the shortcomings they aim to overcome and the principles that have guided the finalisation of this legislation. Regarding the shortcomings in the existing legislation, as already stated, the Department of Public Works is responsible legislatively and administratively for the four existing professions, namely architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and property valuers. Currently each council for the above professions operates independently and in isolation.
Shortcomings in the inherited regulatory framework include inconsistencies in the execution of the core functions of the different statutory councils; lack of proper co-ordination between the different professions with respect to national development priorities; insufficient and, in some cases, no recognition of different categories of professions; inability to respond to innovation and recognise new professions; exclusive governance by registered professionals as manifested in their representation on the council; and lack of transparency, particularly in regard to disciplinary procedures against registered professionals.
The new legislation before the House is enabling legislation that addresses these shortcomings, while maintaining the strengths of the existing legislation. It creates a framework for the ongoing transformation and development of the professions and it creates structured co-ordination and improved accountability to the public.
The Council for the Built Environment will advise Government on matters impacting on the built environment as a whole and will act as a vehicle of communication between Government and the professions. This council will manage co-ordination between the professions to support matters of national importance, such as resource utilisation, human resource development, public safety and health, and the environment in particular. It will enable the recognition of new professions and promote registration of different categories within the profession, effectively opening up the profession to wider access.
The CBE will ensure consistent application of policy and principle by the different councils, in relation to matters that already regulate, such as identifying work that requires the competence of a specific profession; ensuring professional standards, health and safety, and the protection of the public; accrediting professional training programmes and institutions; registering professionals; establishing codes of conduct and disciplinary procedures for members of the respective professions; and establishing guidelines on appropriate fee structures.
The CBE will further promote a range of new priorities and act as an appeal body for affected professionals and aggrieved members of the public. The council for each of the six professions will register professionals in a manner that promotes technical and ethical standards, competence and performance, including the principle of continuous professional development. It will promote recognition of our professions regionally and internationally.
In keeping with the precepts of our democracy, the need for transparency and people-centred development, the new legislation opens up the professions to the public. It promotes partnerships through representation by the professionals, the state and the public on the principle of a 60:20:20 proportional representation. It further requires representation in terms of race, gender, disability and regional distribution. Recognition of the different categories of the professions will enable greater access to professional services by the public. Linked to the required recognition of prior learning, the legislation creates new opportunities for access and career path development within each profession. In response to the request of certain of the professions, we have moved boldly to establish new councils for project and construction management, as well as landscape architects, who were previously regulated as a subset of the architectural profession.
We are convinced that this is fully in keeping with the spirit and intention of the new regulatory framework and that the regulation of project and construction management will indeed promote and enhance delivery, value for money to public and private sector clients, and our socioeconomic objectives.
In conclusion, as I have said, I would like to thank the Portfolio Committee on Public Works, as well as the department’s drafting team and all the stakeholders for the hard work that has been put into the legislation before us. Their concern and attention to detail has ensured that the Bills that are before the House today genuinely promote the growth and development of the built environment professions to the benefit of all South Africans. Much hard work lies ahead to fully implement the new statutory framework. This task will continue to rely on the common commitment of all role-players to the national project of transformation. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Thank you, hon Minister. This must be some kind of record. You have tackled seven Bills in one go.
Inkosi M W HLENGWA: Chairperson and hon members of Parliament, I rise on this appropriate occasion as a South African in the midst of South Africans to make a constructive contribution in respect of the strides that have been made by the Ministry of Public Works regarding these pieces of legislation under discussion.
All South Africans still remember vividly what the position was during the previous dispensation. It is on that basis that these pieces of legislation are seen to be desirable in order to address the inadequacies within the structures of the engineering and built environment professions.
Secondly, I wish to point out that, after studying attentively the contents of the Bills, the members of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works took the decision to conduct public hearings. The rationale was to allow the public and stakeholders to make considered inputs in the drafting process of the legislation. That occasion in turn helped members of the portfolio committee to understand better what could have been overlooked by the legislators of our country.
The hon the Minister of Public Works has already articulated what the Bills seek to address. I can only concur with her that during the previous dispensation there were certain segments of our country that were left out, and, as a result, they could not benefit fully as participants.
It is quite true that during the public hearings concerns were raised by some of the stakeholders, but one could say that the legislation did enjoy general support. There were areas which made some stakeholders uneasy. For example the Engineering Council of South Africa expressed its concern about the following issues: the principle of peer judgment in relation to other principles, the disciplinary procedure, the role of the Council for the Built Environment as an overarching council, the funding of the Council for the Built Environment, the representation of the Council for the Built Environment, the establishment of the Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions, and the term of office of members.
On the question of peer judgment, the portfolio committee was of the view that the current built environment does not reflect the changed South African environment, and further transformation is required. That does impact on the principle of peer judgment versus transparency. In disciplinary cases against a registered person, the principle of peer judgment versus the principles of natural justice is fundamental.
Some of the stakeholders objected to the Project and Construction Management Professions Bill on the grounds that this is one of the functions of an engineer and does not form a profession on its own, and establishing a council would therefore be premature. The crux of the matter is competency. It is against this background that the portfolio committee supports the idea of individuals proving their competency against a set of standards before they can be entrusted with certain functions, inter alia, project and construction management.
I would like to place on record the efforts that were put in by the members of the portfolio committee, the officials of the department, the legal advisers, the state law adviser and the stakeholders. This was really a long process, given the fact that the history and process followed to establish the new framework commenced in 1994, as the Minister mentioned, and the draft legislation was only approved by the state law adviser in March 2000. It was only then that these Bills were referred to the portfolio committee. Since 1994, a steering committee, forums and interested parties have held meetings and made inputs in the process, since there was ample time to do so.
Finally, I wish to wind up by saying that other speakers are going to deal with the clauses and amendments which were made when the committee dealt with the Bills. As I am about to leave this podium, I must mention that on this occasion I am wearing two hats. One is that of the chairperson of the portfolio committee and the other is that of an IFP member. Therefore, let me announce that the IFP supports the Bills on the following grounds. South Africa needs a synergistic, positive response from all appropriate relevant walks of life, from professions, from business, from socioeconomic, indigenous and religious sectors and from various organs of state.
Today we are making these laws, tomorrow someone will amend or repeal them. That is how parliaments operate, and this will remain one of their features for all the years to come. [Applause.]
Mr K MOONSAMY: Chairperson, hon Minister of Public Works, Comrade Stella, hon members, the seven Bills before this august House are a clear indication of the ANC’s commitment to the radical transformation of our society as speedily as possible.
The ANC supports the passage of the seven Bills. We also wish to congratulate the Minister and her department on the thoroughness with which the draft Bills were prepared, and I might add, her dedicated officials who did a fine piece of work in drafting the Bills before us. We believe that together these Bills provide an integrated framework for the regulation of the built environment professions and for advancing their role in the delivery of basic infrastructure to South Africa’s majority population. The legislation recognises the fact that our country produces professionals of the highest calibre who are internationally recognised and competitive. The legislation will ensure that this standard and competitiveness are further sharpened.
South African professionals can boast many achievements that are undoubtedly at the cutting edge of global technology. However, these achievements say nothing, for example, about the physical planning that created apartheid cities in the interests of a minority population, or about the role of the built environment professions, which prospered and profited from apartheid planning. They say nothing about the organised social responsibility of the professions and their acquiescence to Bantu education and job reservation that effectively prevented access to the professions by black South Africans. Black South Africans were systematically prevented from entering into the professions that are covered by six of these Bills.
It should be stated that the organised professions were part of a rotten social system that dispossessed whole populations from access to land, property, infrastructure and resources. Clearly, the apartheid regime needed these professions to advance their philosophy. This skewed philosophy needed a scientific base upon which to operate in the engineering and quantity surveying fields. The SADF and other arms of intelligence benefited from this.
And yet, today, the built environment professions can be proud, as we are in the ANC, of those professionals who sacrificed their careers and privileged social and professional positions to risk imprisonment and exile. I can give the example of our own Comrade Spencer, who went into exile as an architect. I am referring, in particular, to those who joined our people’s struggle to create a more equitable society and a more acceptable built environment for all South Africans. I am also referring to progressive professionals who used their revolutionary intellect to set a framework for the type of moral standards that should define professional commitment to the needs of our society today.
I am talking, too, about the professionals who chose, in the 1980s, to work in the NGOs to support community-based land struggles and alternative development options. Is it not time that all these patriots, past and present, were honoured by their professions? Is it not time that their social commitment was brought in to influence the teaching of the built environment disciplines?
We ask these questions because today our country needs built environment professionals of outstanding social conscience to creatively apply their technical and management skills to the task of transforming the built environment and South African society. It is in this context that the ANC has reviewed the legislation before us, with particular attention to its role in strengthening the Reconstruction and Development Programme.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I think it would help you to use your earpieces, because I think you will be able to hear more clearly with the assistance of the earpiece. Carry on, hon member.
Mr K MOONSAMY: We are convinced that the services provided by the built environment professions are central to the successful implementation of the RDP. It is important, therefore, to touch briefly on some of the RDP principles that the new legislation will promote.
Firstly, the RDP specifically emphasises the need for greater accessibility to the professions. Black communities have been deprived of professionals who have a political and social understanding of their needs. By recognising and promoting different categories of professional competence, the new legislation will enable the building of partnerships between communities and a new group of socially conscious professionals committed to the philosophy of reconstruction of the profession and, in this the broader society.
Secondly, this partnership between communities and professionals, brought together through the co-ordinating function of the Council for the Built Environment, will support an integrated and sustainable approach to development by the professions.
Thirdly, the principle that reconstruction and development should be linked requires mechanisms that actively address the discriminatory practices of the past. In the legislation before us, these include the criteria for representation on the councils to reflect representivity, gender and disability, as well as the recognition of prior learning in the registration of professionals.
In laying the groundwork for the development of a new socially conscious professional in the sectors covered by these Bills, we are encouraged by the supportive range of legislation introduced by Parliament to ensure greater representation of the majority of our people. Employment equity legislation will go a long way in addressing the disparities in these professions. The Skills Development Act also assists this process and is geared to ensuring the accelerated development of black professionals.
Finally, development should be people-centred and people-driven, and should contribute to the strengthening of democracy in South Africa. By opening up representation on the various councils, this legislation will ensure the participation and empowerment of the public and will have far-reaching consequences in reorientating the professions towards the real development needs of our people. In our contribution to the development of this legislation, the ANC has worked with the other parties to strengthen the draft legislation to support these goals.
It is our view that the ongoing advancement of these goals is an important function of the overarching Council for the Built Environment. The role of the Council for the Built Environment must not be viewed as merely one of co-ordination. The Council for the Built Environment must provide strategic leadership to all the councils of the built environment professions to advance national, social and economic goals, and the enhanced role of the professions and their moral and social responsibility in the ongoing project of transformation. This should also contribute to the further strengthening of the developmental agenda of the state.
Because of the importance we attach to this role, we are of the view that the chairperson and the deputy chairperson of the CBE will have to be people of a calibre that can provide the kind of leadership necessary to advance national goals. We therefore advocate, with the support of most of the parties who are committed to change, that appointments into these key positions should be the responsibility of the Minister and should not be left to the council itself.
In conclusion, the ANC’s support for the legislation is grounded in the fact that it effectively links the development of the professions to the public interest. The seven Bills promote transparency and accountability with high technical, moral standards. They provide a framework within which the professions can maximise their role in enhancing the social and economic development of the country. This must address the legacy of the distorted environment that is a product of racist planning by the apartheid colonial system. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, one moment, please. I have been told by the Table staff that technical services is attending to the problem. I hope we will be in a position to hear members speaking very clearly and audibly in a short while.
Mr S E OPPERMAN: Chairperson, responses to the seven Bills on the built environment vary from one organisation to the other. The following is a submission by the SA Institution of Civil Engineers, and I quote:
We are delighted that so many of our recommendations have in the past been incorporated into the proposed legislation in one form or another. The Engineering Council of South Africa, ECSA, said in reaction to the amendments, and I quote:
These amendments appear to reflect the total disregard for contributions made by ECSA …
While different professions tried to improve the Bills, there was a totally different view from Bob Hindle from the University of Cape Town in his submission. He said, and I quote:
It is clear that the built environment professions are severely threatened by the advances in information technology. The numbers of land surveyors are declining because one individual can now undertake the work of several. Town and regional planning will also be affected, whilst architects and engineers are learning to cope with computer-aided designs, and quantity surveyors with computer-aided measurement.
He also said that the built environment professions Bills will have the effect of working against the broader Government construction delivery objectives; that the support by Government of the built environment professions and the various Acts that protect individual professions are the primary cause of the lack of progress, innovation and development of the construction industry and process; and that if Government hopes to improve construction delivery through intervention, the most effective way would be to abandon the proposed built environment professions Bills and repeal the current Acts.
It was also his view that the construction delivery process was backward, that the organisation known as profession was flawed; that the supposed leaders of the process were not effective; and that they were - despite their lack of effectiveness - supported by Government through Acts that are effective barriers to innovation, development and change.
It is through this sea of conflicting views that the hon the Minister, Government, committee members, officials and all the other stakeholders must steer this ship so that we, at the end of the day, can achieve equity, transparency, representivity, real transformation and effective governance.
Dit is van kardinale belang dat ons in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks so vorentoe sal beweeg dat ons sover moontlik alle belangrike rolspelers positief betrokke hou. Ons glo hierdie wetgewing kan waardevolle geleenthede bied vir die volle ontwikkeling van die menslike hulpbronpotensiaal in ons land.
Die ingenieursbedryf met al sy vertakkings lewer van die belangrikste bydraes tot ons ekonomiese groei en stabiliteit. Daarom behoort ons die bedryf met al sy komponente so te hanteer dat ons die maksimum bydrae en ondersteuning daaruit kan mobiliseer. Daarom moet ons die kundigheid wat ons het - en dit is van die beste in die wêreld - ten volle benut, en nie met kleinlike politiek van ons vervreem of uiteindelik wegdryf nie.
Ons kan dit nie bekostig nie. Die gedurige verwysing na die proses van demokratisering word geweld aangedoen as ons gedurig daarop aandring dat Ministers altyd in alles die laaste sê moet hê. Moet alles tot op die laaste letter gereguleer word? Het ons dan geen vertroue in die ``goodwill’’ van mense nie? Wat het geword van die reg van mense om ook vir hulself besluite te neem? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[It is of the utmost importance that we move forward in such a way in the South African context that, as far as possible, we keep all important role- players positively involved. We believe that this legislation can offer valuable opportunities for the full development of the potential of human resources in our country.
The engineering industry, with all its branches, makes some of the most important contributions to our economic growth and stability. For that reason we should handle the industry with all its components in such a manner that we can mobilise the maximum contribution and support from it. That is why we must fully utilise the expertise which we have - and it is among the best in the world - and not alienate them or ultimately drive them away with petty politics.
We cannot afford that. The constant reference to the process of democratisation is violated if we continuously demand that Ministers must always have the last say in everything. Must everything be regulated from start to finish? Do we have no confidence in the goodwill of people? What has become of the right of people to make decisions for themselves?] Therefore, we in the DP cannot simply condone such amendments as, for example, in clause 42(4) of the Engineering Profession Bill. Previously it was stated that the Engineering Council of South Africa must act in consultation with the Minister. This has been changed to ``the Minister must, after consultation with the Engineering Council of South Africa’’. The fact that this was done after public hearings, without giving all the stakeholders another opportunity to make an input, makes it all the more suspicious.
Where there are fundamental changes, we must refer the Bill back to all the stakeholders involved in the process. If not, we are just paying lip service to what we term transparency. We also cannot allow what I call backdoor submissions that presumably carry more weight than formal submissions.
Die onnatuurlike en opdringerige ingryping deur die Minister in wat persoonlike aangeleenthede van die professies moet wees, wat deur hierdie wetgewing moontlik gemaak word, word ten sterkste afgekeur. Ons moet wegbeweeg van oorregulering en toelaat dat natuurlike, evolusionêre prosesse en markkragte die pas bepaal. ‘n Vrug kan nooit ryp gedruk word nie. Vra maar vir die lede van die Suid-Afrikaanse bofbalspan wat in die Olimpiese Spele meegeding het. Wanneer daar teen die beste in die wêreld gekompeteer word, moet ons die potensiaal hê om resultate te kan lewer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The unnatural and intrusive interference by the Minister in what should be private matters of the profession, which is being made possible by this legislation, is rejected in the strongest possible terms. We must move away from overregulation and allow natural, evolutionary processes and market forces to determine the pace. One can never force the issue. Just ask the members of the South African baseball team that competed in the Olympic Games. When one is competing against the best in the world, one must have the potential to achieve the results.]
We cannot set people up to be failures.
Die voorgestelde prosesse om onaanvaarbare praktyke te ondersoek moet versnel word. Uitmergelende rompslomp met verreikende finansiële implikasies sal ‘n verlammende uitwerking op die professies hê. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.) [The proposed processes to investigate unacceptable practices must be speeded up. Exhausting red tape with far-reaching financial implications will have a paralysing effect on the professions.]
That will be counterproductive to the very objectives that the Bill intends to achieve.
Dit is ironies dat ons sekere professies met swaar boetes dreig indien hulle nie gesonde finansiële dissipline toepas nie. As ons eerbaar wil wees, behoort ons dieselfde beginsel op ons eie departement van toepassing te maak. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[It is ironic that we are threatening certain professions with heavy fines if they do not apply sound financial discipline. If we want to be honourable, we should apply the same principle to our own department.]
We need to set the example. We in the DP will support the Bills, but we want our objections to certain subclauses to be noted. [Applause.]
Mnr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mnr die Voorsitter, dit is met gemengde gevoelens dat ‘n mens deelneem aan die debat oor Wetsontwerpe 16B tot 22B. Die beginsel om ‘n raad in te stel wat toesig oor die hele bou-omgewing moet hou, moet deur alle betrokkenes verwelkom word.
Indien deel van die belangstelling in die wetsontwerpe daaroor gaan om beter beskerming aan Jan Publiek te verskaf, is die wetgewing soveel te meer te verwelkom. Daarom is die volgende professies wat betrokke is, naamlik argitektuur, ingenieurswese, landskapsargitektuur, eiendomswaardering, projek- en konstruksiebestuur en bourekenaarwese in pas gebring met hulle gesamentlike bydrae tot die totale bou-omgewing.
Voordat ek aandag gee aan die onderskeie wetsontwerpe, net ‘n paar algemene opmerkings. Die Regering het oor ‘n tydperk van vyf jaar forums tot stand gebring, wyd geraadpleeg en uiteindelik ‘n wet daargestel wat vir bespreking aan alle betrokkenes gesirkuleer is. Wanneer dit dan gebeur dat daar ná al hierdie prosesse nog soveel verskille bestaan tussen die Regering van die dag, die departement en die professies wat geraak word, raak ek agterdogtig daaroor of die proses wat daarop gevolg het van waarde was. Daar is ‘n tweede saak wat ernstig krap. Nadat die departement die wetsontwerpe geskryf het en nadat vertoë van betrokkenes aangehoor is en die wetsontwerp in sy finale fase aan die portefeuljekomitee voorgelê is, het die ANC-groepering in die portefeuljekomitee met wesenlike veranderings na vore gekom. Enige bespreking daarná, al het ander partye verskil, is met hulle groter mag van die tafel afgevee.
Soos wat die opposisiepartye hierdie magsvertoon van die ANC deurleef, en maar altyd weer beleef dat enige voorstelle geïgnoreer word, so het ‘n waardeerde professie, verteenwoordig deur die Suid-Afrikaanse raad op ingenieurs, dit weer eens beleef:
These amendments appear to reflect the total disregard for contributions made by ECSA with express support from other professions in its previous submissions to the portfolio committee during June and August this year. It is difficult to imagine that these amendments constitute an outcome of a process understood to be democratic. ECSA is on record as having repeatedly expressed its sincere support for the proposed legislation, and has expended considerable time and effort to contribute proactively and positively to achieve a legislative outcome conducive to good, internationally acceptable professional practice. It was ECSA’s sincere objective to serve the interests of the country and its people well as the effective and the efficient administration of a profession. These contributions were made on the assumption that the engineering profession was recognised as a committed partner along with the state in addressing the future challenges posed by the Government to the building environment professions.
Laat ek maar reguit sê, ek verwag nie dat alle insette deur die verskillende rolspelers alles opgeneem moet word in die wetgewing nie. Verre daarvandaan! Indien daar egter gereeld vir die opposisie-komponente in die portefeuljekomitee gesê word dat alle vertoë nie geakkommodeer word nie, skep dit die indruk dat die ANC-komponent, in samewerking met die departement, nie die bona fides van die opposisiepartye aanvaar nie, en dat ons dit nie kan verstaan nie. Laat ek maar net sê, ons verstaan dit wel deeglik.
My uitgangspunt is ten alle tye om ‘n bydrae binne en buite die portefeuljekomitee te lewer wat in belang van Suid-Afrika sal wees. Ek stem nie saam met die raad op ingenieurs dat die proses stopgesit moet word nie. As lid van die portefeuljekomitee is ek glad nie tevrede dat vertoë byvoorbeeld vanaf die raad teruggehou is van hierdie komitee nie. Die verskoning is ook nie aanvaarbaar nie. Dit bly die reg van die portefeuljekomitee om te besluit of hy ‘n dokument wil bespreek al dan nie. Dit was interessant om te sien hoe ANC-lede ons gewaardeerde sekretaris probeer beskerm.
Daar is twee aspekte in die algemeen wat steeds verontrustend is. Dit is ‘n fout dat die staat geen finansiële bydrae tot die funksionering van die wetgewing gaan maak nie. Dit is maklik om ‘n lomp raad daar te stel en die onderskeie professies moet alleen daarvoor betaal, gesien in die lig van die min aanvaardings van die professie se voorstelle. Dan hang die onderrok van die nuwe soustrein ver uit.
Die ander aspek wat my ongemaklik laat voel, is die onbeperkte magte wat aan die Minister toevertrou word. Ek is nie bekommerd dat die agb Minister nie vertrou kan word nie, maar te veel magte aan die Minister beteken in die praktyk maar net dat die amptenare die besluite gaan neem. Ons werk hier met hoogsgeskoolde professies. Dit is logies dat hulle agterdogtig is omdat hulle nie behandel word volgens die status van hulle professies nie.
Ek moet hieroor ‘n waarskuwing rig: Ons sit met ‘n massa individue en instansies wat graag bydraes wil maak om Suid-Afrika in totaliteit te laat slaag. Ons moet nie só optree dat hierdie mense belangstelling verloor nie.
Ek wil ‘n ernstige versoek rig dat die departement sal voortgaan met gesprekke met die onderskeie rolspelers. Dit sal beter wees as daar meer tevredenheid hieroor kan kom. Ek is oortuig daarvan dat daar geregverdige besware is, byvoorbeeld oor klousule 3(2) in die wetgewing oor die ingenieursprofessie. Dit tas uiteindelik die 60%-40%-beginsel aan. Dit sal uiters vervelig wees om al hierdie klousules te bespreek. Al die professies het die beginsel van die wetgewing gesteun.
Omdat die beginsel van die wetsontwerp aanvaarbaar is, sal die Nuwe NP die wetgewing steun. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairperson, it is with mixed feelings that one takes part in the debate on Bills 16B to 22B. The principle of establishing a council that must supervise the entire built environment should be welcomed by all interested parties.
If part of the interest in the Bills concerns providing John Citizen with better protection, the legislation is even more welcome. For that reason the following professions that are involved, namely architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, property valuation, project and construction management and quantity surveying, have been brought into line with their joint contribution to the entire built environment.
Before I give attention to the respective Bills, I just want to say a few things in general. Over a period of five years, the Government established forums, consulted widely and eventually drafted legislation that was circulated to all interested parties for discussion. When it then happens that after all these processes there are still so many differences between the Government of the day, the department and the relevant professions, I become suspicious as to whether the process that followed on that was of any use.
There is a second issue that rankles a great deal. After the department had drafted the Bills and after representations from interested parties had been heard and the Bill, in its final phase, had been submitted to the portfolio committee, the ANC grouping in the portfolio committee came up with crucial amendments. Although other parties disagreed, they swept any further discussion aside with their superior numbers.
In the same way that the opposition parties are experiencing this show of strength by the ANC, and time and again, find that any proposals they make are ignored, a valued profession, represented by the Engineering Council of South Africa, also found this out again.
These amendments appear to reflect the total disregard for contributions made by ECSA with express support from other professions in its previous submissions to the portfolio committee during June and August this year. It is difficult to imagine that these amendments constitute an outcome of a process understood to be democratic. ECSA is on record as having repeatedly expressed its sincere support for the proposed legislation, and has expended considerable time and effort to contribute proactively and positively to achieve a legislative outcome conducive to good, internationally acceptable professional practice. It was ECSA’s sincere objective to serve the interests of the country and its people well as the effective and the efficient administration of a profession. These contributions were made on the assumption that the engineering profession was recognised as a committed partner, along with the state, in addressing the future challenges posed by the Government to the building environment professions.
Allow me to say frankly that I do not expect all the inputs of the various role-players to be incorporated in the legislation. Far from it! However, if the opposition components in the portfolio committee are regularly told that not all representations are being accommodated, this creates the impression that the ANC component, in co-operation with the department, does not accept the bona fides of the opposition parties, and that we cannot understand it. Allow me just to say that we do indeed understand it perfectly.
My point of departure is at all times to make a contribution, both in and outside of the portfolio committee, that would be in the interests of South Africa. I do not agree with ECSA that the process should be halted. As a member of the portfolio committee I am not at all happy that representations, from ECSA for example, were withheld from this committee. The excuse is not acceptable either. It remains the right of the portfolio committee to decide whether it wants to discuss a document or not. It was interesting to see how members of the ANC tried to protect our esteemed secretary.
There are two aspects in general that still rankle. It is a mistake that the state is not going to make any financial contribution to the functioning of the legislation. It is easy to establish an unbalanced council, which the various professions must pay for themselves, in the light of the few proposals by the profession that were adopted. Then it is abundantly clear to everyone what the state of the new gravy train is.
The other aspect that makes me feel uncomfortable is the unlimited powers that the Minister is being entrusted with. I am not concerned that the hon the Minister cannot be trusted, but in practice too many powers to the Minister simply means that the officials are going to make the decisions. We are dealing here with highly skilled professions. It is logical that they are suspicious, because they are not being treated according to the status of their professions.
I must issue a warning in this regard: We are dealing with a large number of individuals and institutions that would like to make contributions so that South Africa can succeed in its totality. We should not act in such a manner that these people lose interest.
I want to make a serious appeal that the department will continue to hold discussions with the various role-players. It will be better if a greater degree of satisfaction can be achieved in this respect. I am convinced that there are justified objections, for example regarding clause 3(2) in the legislation pertaining to the engineering profession. It eventually jeopardises the 60%-40% principle. It would be extremely boring to discuss all these clauses. All the professions supported the principle of the legislation.
Because the principle of the Bill is acceptable, the New NP will support the legislation.]
Mr C J MALULEKE-HLANEKI: Chairperson, hon Minister and the honourable House, these professions play a crucial role in the delivery of services to the nation. They design the roads and bridges, the airports and airways that allow us movement across the land. They design dams, reservoirs and purification works that provide us with clean drinking water. They build shopping centres that allow our economy to grow and thrive.
Although they do all this in a regulated environment, we define who can do what and how it should be done. Although it provides guidelines on payment for services, the built environment does not yet reflect the change and progress taking place in South Africa.
In these times of change, we also need to ask if all the people of our nation have access to these skills and opportunities to fulfil their needs. This legislation must accelerate the pace of transformation and access. It will open up the professions to a wider range of talents. Appropriate and affordable skills must be directed to the problems faced by our people. Let us not squander the talents of highly qualified and experienced people on simple problems. Allowing technicians and technologists to exercise their skills in areas where they are competent will support access by ordinary people and will free up the scarce expertise we have for more complex problems.
We all know that, in the past, these professions were reserved for white people. Black people, especially women, were excluded from entering these professions. The education system can be blamed for not providing proper facilities and training for those black students who entered the built environment professions. But previous councils in the built environment professions should also shoulder some of the blame, as they did very little or nothing to improve the situation for black professionals. In fact, since one of their responsibilities was the accreditation of training institutions, it is clear that they condoned practices which reduced the chances of black people succeeding in these careers.
Some of the bush colleges were notorious for their poor quality of staff, and some of them increased the qualification period, such as having a six- year engineering degree when four years was the norm at white universities. The impact of these policies is reflected by the fact that, in 1996, there were only 28 practising African architects compared to small countries such as Lesotho and Botswana which had 22 and 20 respectively.
The pace of transformation in some professions is simply unacceptable. In 1998, only 6% of the 7 600 civil engineers and technologists who registered with the SA Institute of Civil Engineering were black, and less than 3% were women. These imbalances must be addressed. For the first time in its long history, a woman leads this institute whose president now is Elsa Lowles. We commend this step and hope it will lead to greater representation of all the marginalised sectors of our society.
Our new legislation must promote this transformation within the council itself, as we work together with the professions, by creating an enabling environment for them to grow, develop and transform. We need to ensure that women and blacks who possess the kind of skills and leadership needed are given the opportunity to hold strategic positions within the council. At the public hearings we conducted in June this year, one of the existing councils was so proud of the fact that its database was colour-blind that they could not even give us figures on the number of registered black professionals. If they do not have this information, how can they actively ensure progress on the issue of access to the professions by blacks and women?
The current practices of the various councils do not adequately open the professions to a wider range of talent. Current registration requirements focus mainly on qualifications obtained through universities rather than on a combination of qualifications, experience and competence. The new legislation will ensure that registration requirements incorporate skills, expertise and competence obtained through prior learning. It is through the incorporation of such measures that we can begin to realise the opportunities of blacks and women for accelerated development within the professions.
In this context, I wish to commend the Minister and the department for the introduction of the new consultant roster which has done a lot to promote the rapid gaining of experience by black built environment professionals. Since this computerised roster automatically accelerates the number of appointments to firms with a majority black ownership, it is not surprising that a number of white professionals have forged partnerships with blacks. Clearly, the process of nation-building accommodates many approaches, and there are more ways than one of leading a horse to water. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, to those of you who are having behind-the-shoulder conferences, this act does not make for an edifying spectacle for our voters who are watching. I will permit you to have side-by-side conferences, provided you give half an ear and half an eye to what is happening at the front of the House. [Interjections.]
Mr S ABRAM: Chairperson, I want to assure you that I have given my full ear, heart and attention to the seven Bills that are before us. The hon the Minister’s department needs to be congratulated on hitting not just a six, but a seven with regard to these Bills. We understand that there have been wide-ranging consultations over a lengthy period of time, and that the results thereof are to be found in these seven Bills.
At this juncture, I wish to pay tribute to the chairperson of the committee and all its members. Our committee focused on what was to be done with regard to transformation in this particular, and most important, sector of our society. If one takes into account that we have millions of people who live in informal circumstances, then this department and these Bills assume even greater importance. I must say that committee members did not allow politics to play a role in the process, but paid attention to the real needs of the country at this juncture. I believe this is a plus for this committee.
One must also pay tribute to the officials. During the entire process when these Bills served before the portfolio committee, there were numerous retyped amendments to the various measures. The officials were very agreeable in helping to bring about amendments which contributed to the proposed legislation reading better, and panel-beating them into shape. I believe what we have before us is the result of that panel-beating, sending the legislation backwards and forwards between the legal advisers and the committee.
I cannot completely agree with my colleague from the DP, the hon Mr Opperman, that there should have been another opportunity for people who had sent in representations. I believe that substantial opportunities were created, also in consultation with the various bodies that represent the different professions, and one cannot expect there to be an ongoing process.
Even after the enactment of the legislation there will be processes. Laws are not cast in stone. If one finds that certain provisions do not work well, then, of course, there will be processes through which these organisations and institutions can make representations.
I wish to refer to an aspect regarding professional services rendered. I know that professional organisations lay down certain minimum standards and that they expect certain minimum charges. However, I want to tell the professions that will be governed by these pieces of legislation that, over the last couple of years, we have seen a lot of so-called consultants and all sorts of people muscling in.
I want to tell hon members this in the form of a little story. Years ago, at a time when people of my colour were not permitted in the Free State but could only pass through, two Jewish families ran businesses in a small country town. The one family sold clothing and the other fresh produce. One day the son of the owner of the fresh produce store needed a new suit. He looked at a few suits in the clothing store and when he decided on one, he asked the price. He was told the suit cost ten pounds. He told the owner of the clothing store that he could not afford that, but could offer him five pounds. The owner replied that he could not give it to him for that amount, but enquired who he was. The young man replied that he was the son of Mr Cohen from up the road. The shopkeeper then told the young man that he served on the synagogue committee with his father and that he would indeed sell the suit to him for five pounds. The young man’s reaction was that, in that case, he would offer him two pounds ten, whereupon the shopkeeper replied that he could then just as well give the suit to him for free. The young man then replied by saying that in that case, he would take two. [Laughter.]
What I want to tell people from these professions is that whenever projects are undertaken, they will find that these consultants will want their pound of flesh. They want the maximum that is allowable. I know this because I come from a local government background. I want to appeal to these people to charge reasonable fees if we want to contribute to genuine transformation, if we want to contribute to building our country and if we want to contribute towards getting previously disadvantaged people involved in these professions. I want to urge them not to take the maximum fee that is laid down. I want to urge them to be satisfied with 50% and in this way make a meaningful contribution towards the future prosperity of our country. [Applause.]
Mr B A RADEBE: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, the legislation before the House is consistent with the policies of the Government and our Constitution. It is also consistent with our desire and moral responsibility to continue to regulate the professions in a manner that promotes a built environment appropriate to the new South Africa that we in the ANC have struggled so long to create.
We recognise that the statutory regulations of the built environment professions have contributed substantially to the improvement of professional competency and standards in South Africa. At this stage in our country’s development it is imperative to protect these standards. The professions working in the built environment play a major role in projects of national priority and make a significant contribution to their success. It is of national interest that the contribution of the professions is maximised and co-ordinated because of the potential synergy of the joint contributions.
The expertise available to Government and the country from the professions represents a valuable source of information and advice on matters of critical importance. These, then, should become some of the leadership functions that the new Council for the Built Environment should exercise.
Allow me to highlight some of the key principles that have guided the formulation of the new legislation. Firstly, professional regulation should promote an environment in which healthy competition is stimulated. It must therefore be consistent with the competition policy of the country and should provide public protection and recourse in relation to aspects of professional conduct.
Secondly, the regulation of professionals is, by nature, restrictive. One of its main purposes is to ensure that professional functions are performed by persons with the necessary competence. At the same time, the system should create an enabling environment in which the minimum competence requirements are identified in a realistic manner, so as not to deny the ordinary public access to the service.
Thirdly, the development of the professions in South Africa has largely reflected the political developments in the country, with a focus on First World requirements. The developmental needs of the broader society were neglected in the past. However, South Africans can call on the services of the professions which are equal to the best in the world.
International respect for our professions has led to significant co- operation and recognition between South African statutory bodies and voluntary societies, and their counterparts elsewhere in the world. It is also in the interest of both the professions and the broader South African society that this interaction be actively supported and expanded wherever possible by the new councils that we will bring into being. These councils can play a significant role in support of the African renaissance.
Fourthly, voluntary societies in the professions in South Africa have existed in the form of associations and institutions for over 100 years. They predate statutory bodies and continue a tradition of service to their members. By their nature, these voluntary associations represent the interest of their members and not those of the state or the public. While statutory councils ensure that professions fulfil their essential role in the interest of the public, their actions should be supportive of the voluntary societies whose attention is focused on promoting the art, science and development of the professions.
Our new legislation supports a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship by ensuring a clear independence of the statutory councils from the voluntary societies. Despite some lobbying during the public hearings, all parties agreed that the compulsory registration of professionals with the councils should not be linked to the membership of a voluntary society. Indeed, such a link would be in conflict with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of our country.
Fifthly, professional practice relies on a body of knowledge and skills that require appropriate education and experience. The work of the present statutory councils in registering professionals and monitoring professional conduct is based on a system of peer review. The new legislation will continue to rely on the expertise of the professions. However, to ensure a clear focus on public and national interests, representation on the councils will also include independent representation of the public interest and greater levels of accountability.
Finally, the professions regulated by this legislation are different in disciplinary composition and in their relationship with other occupational groupings. However, they also have much in common and relate similarly to each other, to clients and the public. The new legislation reflects both these features by establishing a council for each profession together with an overarching Council for the Built Environment. We are satisfied that the new legislation reflects the requirements of our time and that it will provide a framework within which our talented professionals can flourish and, at the same time, deliver the basic services of our country.
We also want to state that whenever the need arises, that is where the professions do not want to conform to the Constitution of the country, we give Comrade Minister the right to drag them, kicking and screaming, to the councils of these nonracist, nonsexist professions, so that everyone should belong to them. [Applause.]
Mr G E BALOI: Mr Chairperson, all seven these Bills are of crucial importance to a developing country such as South Africa. They are the best of the best. There are seven Bills on the Table. The establishment of all these councils in the Bills are to provide for certain functions that have to be carried out.
The Minister of Public Works, by notice in the Gazette, with effect from the date specified in the notice, established a juristic council to carry out functions accordingly. The functions of all the councils to be created by these Bills will be to provide for the registration of professionals, candidates and specific categories within the particular profession, and also to provide for the regulation of the relationship between these specific professions and the Council for the Built Environment.
South Africa has been locked in the dark by the legacy of the past for many years. These Bills are the eye-openers to our society that was oppressed and disadvantaged. We thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee and also the members who have worked long hours to go through all these Bills and amend them where necessary. We also thank the department that was always there to advise. This is a breakthrough and a record - to table seven Bills in Parliament for debate on one day. We hope that the House will accept and approve all these Bills to become law for the benefit of our country. [Applause.]
Mr K M ANDREW: Chair, thank you for waking up the Assembly. Friday morning is a bit like an after-dinner speech; one feels that one has done rather well if half the audience is awake.
I wish to address myself to the issue of the Property Valuers Profession Bill. The question that arises from this Bill is whether the Government is co-ordinating its activities adequately. In other words, does Government’s one hand know what the other is doing? The Minister of Finance has announced in this House that he is planning to introduce a capital gains tax from 1 April next year, 2001. Now, we happen to consider this tax to be ill-advised, a misallocation of resources and, in fact, it will be counterproductive for our economy. But, the Government does seem determined to proceed regardless of the consequences. One of the consequences of the introduction of a capital gains tax is that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of properties in South Africa will have to be valued over a six-month period during next year. The problem that we face is that there are not enough valuers in South Africa to do this job. The South African Revenue Service, when asked by the Portfolio Committee on Finance how they were going to handle this or how they were going to overcome this problem, indicated that they were looking at permitting others to do the work. In other words, this would be different from the normal sworn valuations that one gets from various people in the property industry. Hence we get this potential contradiction.
If one looks at this Bill, on page 11 in clause 27(3) it says, and I quote:
A person who is not registered in terms of this Act, may not -
(a) perform any kind of work identified for any category of registered persons …
If one looks at clause 19(1), it indicates which categories of persons are being talked about. These are a professional valuer, a professional associated valuer, a candidate valuer and specified categories prescribed by the council. Clause 19(2) reads:
A person may not practise in any of the categories contemplated in subsection (1), unless he or she is registered in that category.
Finally, clause 42(2) outlines the penalties, which amount to imprisonment or the possibility of imprisonment of up to three years. So we have a Bill before us today - which I am sure has many merits, but - contradicts the requirements of a tax that the Minister of Finance has already advised this House that he plans to introduce.
If this Bill is enforced, the capital gains tax law will be even more unworkable than it is likely to be in any event. I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Public Works whether she has consulted the Minister of Finance on this matter. Has she had consultations and discussions with him as to how this contradiction, or potential contradiction, is going to be resolved? How is one going to reconcile, on the one hand, a demand that people be registered, and, on the other, a suggestion from the SA Revenue Service that people other than property valuers are going to be entitled to value property, at least for capital gains tax purposes? Is this going to happen, or are we simply going to experience another blunder by an incompetent government?
Mr E M SIGWELA: Chairperson, my comrades have already referred to the element of self-preservation that characterised some of the inputs in the public hearings. While we value the role of our built environment professions, previous legislation has tended to entrench a misconception that the professions are a breed apart, in much the same way as the previous NP government entrenched the misconception that the paler human species is a breed apart.
The new legislation liberates the professions from this misconception in much the same way as the ANC liberated the NP and the people of South Africa. There was much fear, back in 1994, about the democratisation process, and there is some fear now among the more conservative circles within the professions, about the democratisation which is at the core of our legislation. The fear is about change. It is natural, and perhaps we should not condemn it very much, but we welcome the support of the many progressive professionals and parties who understand and support the need for change.
The passage of the enabling Bills before us will promote positive change through, firstly, the transformation of the regulation of the professions, in line with South Africa’s new democratic order; secondly, the growth and development of the professions and innovation to meet the changed demands of South African society and the imperatives of rapid global change; and, thirdly, the transparency and accountability of the new councils.
The overarching Council for the Built Environment must promote these objectives, as stated above. To strengthen the uniform implementation of these objectives across the professions, the ANC, with the broad support of the other parties, championed certain changes to the Bill, one of which is the appointment of the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Council for the Built Environment by the Minister.
We did so, not because we do not have faith in the appointed members of the CBE, but because we want to ensure the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works to this National Assembly. We want to ensure that committed leadership is at the helm of the new regulatory system, so that the required changes are effected as quickly as possible.
We have had five years of consultation. It is now time for action. The requirement that the CEOs of the councils enter into performance agreements in terms of the objectives of this legislation is an important feature, which underlines the fact that it is time for action. If people do not change and deliver on the objectives of the legislation, we must be in a position to change the people.
With regard to financial accountability, we felt it was important to provide for sanctions should a council fail to deliver proper financial reports on time. One would hope that these reports would indicate what has been achieved within the income and expenditure of the councils.
The appeal body and the issue of appeals occupied us all considerably. In the first instance, we felt that those sitting on the appeal body should have relevant and appropriate experience, and it should not be assumed that because a professional has 10 years experience that was necessarily relevant or appropriate. We also felt that this requirement would once again exclude women and blacks, whose experience may be both relevant and appropriate, even after a few years of experience.
In this regard, I would like people to refer to the statistics given in the 1996-97 survey of the SA Institute of Race Relations which shows how many graduates we had in 1994 when we came into Government. In architecture we had 38 Africans, 29 coloureds, 70 Indians, as opposed to 4 558 whites. [Interjections.] There were 330 African engineering graduates, 214 coloureds and 564 Indians as opposed to 24 413 whites. [Interjections.] In land surveying there were 13 African graduates, four coloureds and seven Indians as opposed to 675 whites. In quantity surveying there were 27 Africans, eight coloureds and 58 Indians as opposed to 1 672 whites. One can go on in this built environment profession to show that there was definitely a distortion, and therefore I would appeal that people should take this into consideration.
The principle of peer judgment in relation to appeals was raised at the hearings, and was found to be a red herring - another means to promote self- preservation and the exclusivity of the professions. Even our former President had to appear before the Supreme Court before ordinary mortals. We did not convene a jury of presidents to ensure the principle of peer judgment.
Transparency and accountability are important in the new South Africa. For the first time since the existence of the councils, these Bills are opening the councils to the public, and are ensuring that professional competence is balanced against transparency. The seven Bills have provided for public representation on all seven councils. This is a step forward in ensuring that the public is aware of its rights and the obligations of the professions to the public. Where appropriate, we believe that the councils must begin to publish cases of professional misconduct, and they must certainly be more proactive in ensuring that the public is aware of recourse in the case of disagreements.
On the issue of people who could not qualify to serve on the councils because of previous criminal records, we felt strongly that those who fought with us against apartheid are perhaps the very people who can strengthen the leadership required on our councils. We, therefore, worked hard to ensure that no legislation emanating from this Government should exclude these patriots from the task of reconstruction that lies ahead. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika ken ‘n baie belangrike plek toe aan die inspraak van die publiek in die wetgewende proses. Artikels 52, 79 en 118 handel almal daaroor.
Aansienlike bedrae geld en tyd word bestee aan skriftelike voorleggings, die openbare aanhoor van voorleggings en konsultasie met rolspelers uit die gemeenskap.
Daar is sekerlik redes hoekom hierdie artikels in die Grondwet beding en ingeskryf is, byvoorbeeld die een groot beginsel dat die staat nie allesoorheersend en alwetend is nie, die beginsel van verteenwoordigende regering uit die mense vir die mense, en die beginsel van vennootskap tussen die openbare en private sektor. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, the Constitution of South Africa emphasises the importance of the participation of the public in the legislative process. Sections 52, 79 and 118 all deal with this.
Substantial amounts of money and a great deal of time are devoted to written submissions, the public hearing of submissions and consultation with role-players from the community.
There are certainly reasons why these sections were negotiated and inserted in the Constitution, for example, the one major principle that the state is not all-powerful and omniscient, the principle of representational government by the people for the people, and the principle of partnership between the public and the private sector.]
More often than not the view is expressed that all these public hearings, and the whole process of participation, are mere window-dressing. In fact, we have had the experience that inputs from the public and other stakeholders are heard, most of the time nicely and politely, but then, as we say in Afrikaans: ``Dis die laaste sien van die blikkantien.’’ Thank you and goodbye! Except, of course, for inputs that are merely echoing His Master’s Voice - the master, of course, being the ANC Government. This is a process of consulting, of hearing and of taking a lot of players onto the field, but the final result is already on the score board.
The set of Bills that we are discussing today may be a good example of that. If a letter is sent to members of Parliament on behalf of the five respective professional and officially recognised councils of engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, valuers and landscape architects, with an urgent appeal to delay the finalisation of a set of Bills affecting them most directly, then something must be wrong.
May I quote one sentence from the letter:
The Portfolio Committee on Public Works and the Department of Public Works in particular will have you believe that extensive consultation has taken place. The fact of the matter is that whilst they went through the motions of consultation, dismally little, if any, of our recommendations were acceded to.
Uit die brief blyk duidelik dat die kommunikasielyne met die verteenwoordigers van hierdie rade eensydig afgesny is, dat hulle nog gewag het vir geleenthede om insette te lewer, toe is die koeël al deur die kerk, en dat wesenlike veranderings ná die laaste beraadslaging met hulle aangebring is en dat hulle nie daaroor kommentaar kon lewer nie. So dien hierdie wetsontwerpe vandag voor hierdie Huis terwyl daar duidelik nog talle sake is wat in die lug hang. Weens ‘n gebrek aan tyd gaan ek hulle nie nou noem nie.
Ek wil nie my lyf in hierdie stadium professioneel hou en op al hierdie besware ingaan nie. Dit staan egter soos ‘n paal bo water dat die proses van deelnemende beraadslaging nie voltooi is nie. Daarom rig ek ‘n dringende beroep dat ‘n proses van voortdurende beraadslaging met hierdie liggame hierdie wetsontwerpe sal vergesel. Daar is meer as net ‘n saak of twee in die bou-omgewing op die spel. Die hele beginsel van openbare deelname, vennootskap en deelnemende regering, soos die Grondwet vereis, kom in die gedrang.
Ek rig dan ook ‘n versoek dat ‘n dringende ontmoeting met die liggame sal plaasvind voor hierdie wetsontwerpe deur die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies gefinaliseer word. Ons het al in die verlede so ‘n voorbeeld gehad toe daar met Agri SA beraadslaag is nadat ‘n wetsontwerp in hierdie Huis bespreek is, maar voordat dit by die NRVP ingedien is. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[From the letter it is clear that the channels of communication with the representatives of these councils were cut off unilaterally, that they were still waiting for opportunities to make inputs when the die was cast, and that significant amendments were effected after the last consultation with them, and that they could not comment on that. This is why these Bills are before this House today while it is clear that many matters are still pending. Due to a lack of time I am not going to mention them now.
At this stage I do not want to pretend to be a professional and discuss all these objections in detail. However, it is very clear that the process of participatory consultation has not been completed. For this reason I urgently request that a process of ongoing consultation with these bodies should accompany these Bills. More than just an issue or two in respect of the built environment are at stake. The whole principle of public participation, partnership and participatory governance, as required by the Constitution, are involved.
I also request that an urgent meeting takes place with the bodies before these Bills are finalised by the National Council of Provinces. We have had an example like this in the past when there were consultations with Agri SA after a Bill had been debated in this House, but before it was introduced in the NCOP. [Time expired.]]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the Council for the Built Environment Bill ensures that all stakeholders dealt with in the seven Bills perform their duties with the objective of improving and being held accountable on an ongoing basis.
The Bill seeks to monitor the service delivery, efficiency and effectiveness of the role-players. The Council for the Built Environment also promotes participation by all stakeholders, via channels of communication, so that co-operative partnerships can be established, with the aim of having a positive impact on development.
The Bill guides all the councils to move away from apartheid rule-driven bureaucracies which were not accustomed to serving communities in a fair and responsive manner. Each council operates independently and promotes and protects the interests of the public. The Bill aims to ensure that the policy developed by the forum is applied equally throughout the built environment. The MF supports the objectives of the Council for the Built Environment Bill. [Applause.]
Miss P S SEKGOBELA: Chairperson, hon members, among the seven Bills before us are three Bills that establish new councils within the framework of this package of enabling legislation. Much more has been said already about the need for the overarching Council for the Built Environment.
The legislation also establishes a new council of two professions - that is, project and construction management, and landscape architects. A board established within the architects’ council currently administers landscape and architecture. The new legislation gives recognition to their expressed desire to establish a council within the new regulation framework. The architects have supported this desire.
The regulation of the construction and project management profession, gives recognition, for the first time, to the increasingly significant role played by these professions in the construction industry. Project and construction management seek to accomplish positive outcomes in terms of project, time, cost and quality. Furthermore, they manage client or investor risk related to the use of project processes and technologies. They are also responsible for health and safety, particularly in relation to the deployment of human resources in risky areas.
Currently in South Africa most built environment professions, particularly practising architects, engineers and quantity surveyors also purport to be project managers irrespective of skills, competence or experience. The fact is that some are more competent than others. No qualification or registration is required: Virtually anyone can set himself up as a project manager. Furthermore, the industry has also done little to reduce the practice of unqualified persons marketing themselves as self-proclaimed experts in this field. The same can be said for construction managers. This is to the detriment of legitimate project managers that face the prospect of their profession being tarnished. It is also to the detriment of clients and users.
The lack of proper recognition of this discipline has relegated them to a mere subcomponent of other disciplines. This is hampering the full development of the professionals in their own right. The Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions will overcome these challenges by allowing for the registration of project and construction management professionals, as well as the accreditation of training programmes and institutions. It will also do so by making allowance for codes of conduct and disciplinary procedures to be put in place for project and construction managers.
The public sector delivery has already began to redefine the nature of project management, in addition to the projection of time, cost, and quality that are demanded by any client. The public sector also requires the management of socioeconomic objectives such as community empowerment, job creation and capacity building, as well as black economic empowerment. The Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions must support the development of best practice in managing these and other socioeconomic objectives through delivery approaches that are innovative and appropriate.
These two professions can have a major impact on the methods that will promote emerging and developing contractors to engage and progress in the construction industry. The Department of Public Works has a pressing need for the recognition of the project management profession, which is at the very core of its own transformation, to effect efficient and effective delivery. The Department of Public Works has already made a major contribution to the development of the profession by promoting project management and calling for public sector officials to co-operate with the University of Natal, Durban.
I would like to congratulate the department on the extensive consultation that has preceded this legislation. As part of this consultation, a steering committee was established for the formation of the Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions, made up of all key stakeholders, which include the engineering and quality surveying professions.
During the public hearings the steering committee fully supported this specific Bill. It is therefore proper that we should place our trust in these new professions by establishing this new council. [Applause.]
Mr M M CHIKANE: Chairperson, today we are discussing seven Bills from the Ministry of Public Works simultaneously which, we believe, is a record. These Bills have been discussed by the portfolio committee and all parties agreed that they would be in the interest of transformation and that they should go through this Parliament unhindered. But, as hon members have come to expect, the Democratic Alliance - or rather, the demonised alliance, agreed in the portfolio committee and now they come here and posture in public and oppose what they previously agreed to. If this is supposed to be the strong opposition, I do not know what this country is coming to.
Today we had the Dr No of the 21st century, Mr Ken Andrew, speaking for the first time on matters pertaining to Public Works. He has never attended a single meeting, but as hon members have got to know him, being Dr Sarafina and Dr Aids, he had to come here today and for electioneering purposes oppose the Bills that had been agreed to by his colleagues in the portfolio committee. I wish Mr Opperman could have listened - because this was a free education for him - to exactly what happened in these professions when our people were denied access to them, when Mr Moonsamy was reading out statistics. Unfortunately he comes from those sectors of our communities that were denied by the Andrews of this world … [Interjections.]
Mr K M ANDREW: That is a lie.
Mr M M CHIKANE: It is not a lie. Check the statistics. It is not a lie. He denied our people the right to participate. He did. [Interjections.] He was sitting in the same parliament. He defended apartheid. He went to the apartheid army. He went there. Of course, he went to the army. Did he not go to the army? Did he not go to the army?
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEE: Order! Hon Chikane, no dialogue in the House. Address the House, please.
Mr M M CHIKANE: I want to state for the record that Mr Andrew served in the apartheid army to oppress the rest of us. Mr Andrew had an advantage of being a student at Wits and denied all our people the right to enter some of these professions. [Interjections.] Mr Andrews sat in this Parliament and created the legislation that prevented our people from participating. [Interjections.] That is the same Andrew who today is opposing transformation of the legislation that he passed in those years. [Applause.] It was his party.
Mr K M ANDREW: You were advantaged too.
Mr M M CHIKANE: Of course … [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
Ms R TALJAARD: Chairperson, on a point of order: Surely the hon member should address the issue at hand and the Bills before us and not launch an attack … [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, continue, that is not a point of order.
Mr M M CHIKANE: Thank you, Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
Adv J H DE LANGE: Chairperson, on a point of order: I heard one of the members from that side of the House calling the member a liar. As far as I know that is unparliamentary. Could the member please withdraw that?
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Ken Andrew, can you withdraw the word liar?
Mr K M ANDREW: Yes, certainly Chair … [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Withdraw the word, liar.
Mr K M ANDREW: He is a liar and that is unparliamentary so I withdraw.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! No, withdraw unconditionally.
Mr K M ANDREW: Whether he is a liar or not I withdraw it, Chair. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Andrew, withdraw the word liar unconditionally.
Mr K M ANDREW: I withdraw the word liar.
Mr M M CHIKANE: Of course, Mr Andrew should not think I mind, because he has never been known to tell the truth. The truth of the matter is that the hon member did sit here and pass the legislation. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Andrew, I said there should be no dialogue in the House. Hon member, please address the House. Mr M M CHIKANE: The ANC is proud of its six-year record in this Parliament of transforming and building a new South Africa based on the will of all South Africans, regardless of colour or creed. We are also proud that we have been able to usher in freedom of expression to allow people who in the past denied us the right to speak and express ourselves, to speak as they are doing today.
However, we are saddened that we have the likes of the hon Mr Opperman who, despite the statistics that, indeed, indicate that the legislation that was passed in the past by his masters denied all our people who were oppressed entry to these professions, will still echo His Master’s Voice. It is really regrettable that he should listen to the Dr Sarafinas of this House. [Interjections.]
On the basis of what we have said, the ANC proudly supports all seven Bills. [Applause.]
UMPHATHISWA WEMISEBENZI YAKWARHULUMENTE: Mhlalingaphambili, xa kusithiwa asizange sithethe nabantu bubuxoki obuphinda-phindeneyo obo. Ngo 1995 ukuya ku 1996 … (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Chairperson, when it is said that we never talked to the people, that is a blatant lie. From 1995 to 1996 …]
… we commissioned the Human Sciences Research Council to deal with the matter. In 1997, we developed the policy document. In 1997-98, further consultations were held with the stakeholders. In February 1999, the Built Environment Forum refined and approved the policy document. In June 1999, we had one-on-one consultations on the draft Bill with all the professions. In July 1999, it was put for publication and public comment. In September 1999, Cabinet approved this, and I want to add that the Minister of Finance was part of Cabinet, which scrutinised and approved the document after extensive consultation within Government. We know what we are about. We do not have to be told. In March 2000, this was certified by the state law adviser, and then the draft Bill was given to the portfolio committee to hold public hearings.
I am rather shocked that one of the hon members has actually accused all of the hon members in their various portfolio committees of window-dressing. One comes here as a representative of the people; one sacrifices time and energy to spend hours listening to public hearings, and then someone calls those public hearings window-dressing! Is he not part of this august body?
Change is always ushered in with a lot of fears. This is about change. The statistics that were quoted here by one of our hon members are staggering. They show in no uncertain terms how the majority of the people in this country were put in that little box in the corner. If one thinks in terms of the term of office, which is one of the issues of contention with one of the professional bodies, the reason they want the term of office to go on forever [umlevo] [umlembelele], is because the new entrants will never have a chance. It is like what we had in the past, where there were advertisements which read … [Interjections.] Ndakukufaka impama! [I will slap you!] [Laughter.] [Applause.] It is like what we had in the past where there were advertisements which read: ``You must have 15 years experience’’. People knew that our people who were oppressed would never have 15 years of experience. We do not want to create fiefdoms of people who will be forever in those positions. Never ever.
If one talks in terms of the new body for construction and project managers that we have created, I am dealing with Community-Based Public Works Programmes addressing poverty. One of the weaknesses is not having people who are pure construction and project managers. Hence, sometimes one has buildings such as the one we were told about, which had been inspected but collapsed on children. We, as the ANC-led Government, cannot continue to work along those lines.
Secondly, I would like to come to something interesting, namely judgments by peers. What we know is that, in cases of natural justice - which is called nemo judex sua causa - one cannot be a player and a referee. These people want to listen to cases and, at the same time, they want to be the ones to listen to appeals. Where has one ever heard of that in natural justice? So, I believe that it needs to be put right.
I also want to emphasise that, when memos are submitted to Cabinet - this is for people’s information - one of the questions put, which accompanies every memo, is: Does it comply with the Constitution? What we are putting before this House complies with the Constitution and the policies of Government. Even on the issue of the fast-tracking process, when we wanted to relent as Public Works, the state law adviser actually said that we would be unconstitutional. I sometimes want to believe that some hon members, when they have to discuss some of the Bills here, should always carry the Constitution in their pockets so that they can remind themselves from time to time. But I must commend all the members for the broader support shown for the Bill.
We are in a democratic state, and in any democracy, one cannot say: ``It is done. It is finished. We will lock it up in a steel box.’’ Consultations are always an ongoing process, and one of the reasons that people bring certain amendments forward in the Assembly, from time to time, is that, after the Act has been implemented, one or two flaws are recognised. No Government Minister will ever say that they will not attend to those matters.
So I would like to say to hon members that this is the right step which will make sure that those people who were disadvantaged become part of the broader professions. We cannot keep on looking behind and saying that it was nice in the world that was when we are now in a democracy in the true sense of the word. I thank hon members for their support and I want to assure them that we are democratising and transforming and that we want to make sure that this is one department in which professional people will be part and parcel of a broader South Africa.
If one talks of the construction industry, in which some of these people participate, one will find that at this point in time very few people recognise that the construction industry is an asset. But if one puts everything together and very well, it will be one of the assets we can boast of, and with which we can make interventions not only in Africa, but also internationally. I thank members for their support. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Council for the Built Environment Bill read a second time.
Architectural Profession Bill read a second time.
Landscape Architectural Profession Bill read a second time.
Engineering Profession Bill read a second time.
Property Valuers Profession Bill read a second time.
Project and Construction Management Professions Bill read a second time.
Quantity Surveying Profession Bill read a second time.
The House adjourned at 11:08. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
The South African Boxing Bill [B 58 - 2000], introduced by the Minister
of Sport and Recreation on 23 August 2000 and found to be out of order
by the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) (see Announcements, Tablings and
Committee Reports, p 741), was removed from the Order Paper and
referred back to the Minister on 28 September 2000.
National Assembly:
- The Speaker:
(1) The following changes have been made to the membership of Joint
Standing Committees, viz:
Defence:
Appointed: Mohlala, R J B.
(2) The following changes have been made to the membership of
Portfolio Committees, viz:
Public Enterprises:
Appointed: Mohlala, R J B.
Public Service and Administration:
Appointed: Mohlala, R J B.
Safety and Security:
Appointed: Bloem, D V (Alt).
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Health on the Council for Medical Schemes Levies Bill [B 61 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 77), dated 29 September 2000:
The Portfolio Committee on Health, having considered the Council for Medical Schemes Levies Bill [B 61 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 77), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a money Bill, reports that it has concluded its deliberations thereon.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 60 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 77), dated 29 September 2000:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 60 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 77), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a money Bill, reports that it has concluded its deliberations thereon.
-
Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 6 September 2000:
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered and
examined the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
of Vote 21: Justice for the year ended March 1999 [RP 145-99] and the
Deposit Account administered by the Department of Justice [RP 196-99],
as well as certain papers referred to it, and having heard evidence,
reports as follows:
The Committee heard evidence from the new Director-General for
Justice, Adv Pikoli, and certain senior officials in the
Department of Justice.
The Committee notes with concern the many shortcomings in
financial management, contained in the Report. This concern is
deepened by the fact that many of the shortcomings have been
reported for the past two years, with little or no improvement
shown. In the view of the Committee, this has led to the chaotic
state of financial management in the Department, which was
illustrated by the fact that the Department was unclear as to
whether it had a financial manager between 1997 and January 2000.
While the Committee welcomes the drafting of the Financial
Management Improvement Plan (FMIP) that it had recommended in its
Third Report for 1999 (First Session, Second Parliament), it
remains deeply concerned that already the Department is far behind
schedule with the implementation of this FMIP.
Specifically, the Committee wishes to report the following areas
of concern:
1. Financial management
The Committee has noted that the Department is aligning itself
with the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act.
The Committee disagrees with the Director-General that it will
take three years to resolve the Department's financial
management problems, and is of the view that the deterioration
in respect of financial management during previous years must
be halted immediately.
(1) The Committee insists that the Director-General appoint a
chief financial officer at senior level as a matter of
urgency.
(2) The Committee is concerned about the lack of progress
regarding implementation of the FMIP, which at the time
of the hearing was at least five months behind schedule.
The Committee therefore requires the Department to
provide it with a written report on progress with the
implementation of the FMIP on a monthly basis until the
end of this financial year, or until such time that the
Committee is satisfied that sufficient progress has been
made.
(3) The Committee further requires to be provided with the
Department's monthly management reports for the period
April to December 2000.
(4) Given the seriousness of these matters, the Committee
recommends that the Ministry assess progress in respect
of financial management in the Department on an ongoing
basis. Should the Committee be of the view that there is
no significant improvement in the Department's management
of public finances by the end of this financial year, it
will request the National Treasury to intervene, in terms
of the Public Finance Management Act, in the financial
management of the Department of Justice.
2. Decentralisation
The Committee is concerned that the decentralisation process
has had a negative impact on financial management in the
Department, due to the lack of financial management capacity
in the regions. The Committee strongly recommends that the
review of the effect of the decentralisation of financial
management be expedited and that, where necessary, the
Director-General ensure that the required resources be made
available or that other corrective measures be implemented
without delay.
The Committee will consider making in situ visits to regions
to assess capacity and the internal control environment.
3. Audit Committee
The Committee takes note of the unacceptable practice of
members of the internal audit firm being appointed to the
Audit Committee. The Committee recommends that the Department
ensure that the independence of the Audit Committee always be
beyond reproach.
The Committee notes with concern that the Audit Committee has
not always been kept informed about financial management
developments in the Department. In order to be effective, the
Audit Committee must have access to all information relevant
to its task.
The Committee recommends that it be furnished with reports by
the chairperson of the newly constituted Audit Committee,
containing the following information:
(1) Whether internal auditors have conducted a risk analysis
of the Department's operations with which the Audit
Committee is satisfied.
(2) A brief report on the effectiveness or otherwise of the
internal audit section, including their audit planning.
(3) An indication of whether the internal auditors' work
complies with the standards of the Institute of Internal
Auditors (IIA), as required by new Treasury Regulation
3.2.5, and if not, which standards are applied in the
meantime and by when they will be able to comply with the
IIA standards.
(4) An indication of the responsiveness by the Department's
management to the findings of the internal auditors.
(5) Any other matters pertinent to the state of financial
management in the Department.
Where relevant, this information should be submitted on a
quarterly basis.
4. Deposit Account
The Committee is concerned that the Deposit Account is
characterised by a serious deterioration in control, and that
no revision of procedures, prescripts and structures has
occurred. The Committee further notes with concern that
suspensions relating to fraud and financial irregularity have
increased.
The Committee, noting with shock that a trust fund handling
public moneys of up to R1,96 billion in the 1998-99 financial
year has not produced any financial statements since the 1994-
95 financial year, requests that, on conclusion of the audit
mentioned below, financial statements be compiled in respect
of the financial years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98,
unless the said audit finds that this is not possible. In
addition, it is imperative that regular reconciliations of the
Account are undertaken, as required by the Public Finance
Management Act.
Finally, in view of the seriousness of the problems noted, the
Committee recommends that the Auditor-General initiate a
special audit on the Deposit Account to address the following
issues:
(1) Whether the systems, prescripts and method of work will
enable the production of financial statements that are
reliable and auditable.
(2) The correctness of opening balances.
(3) The effect of commercialisation of the Deposit Account.
(4) The extent of fraud, proposed action to combat fraud in
the future, and the possibility of action against those
involved in fraud.
(5) The feasibility of ring-fencing the old business from the
new.
5. Regulations for investigating units
The Committee recommends that the Department, in consultation
with the Office of the Auditor-General, draft regulations to
ensure that investigating units report on their achievements
in an auditable manner on a regular basis.
6. Unauthorised expenditure
The Committee notes that the Department was responsible for
over 50% of the unauthorised expenditure by government
departments in the financial year under review. This matter
will be addressed in a separate Report.
Report to be considered.