National Assembly - 12 October 2000
THURSDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2000 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:02.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Ms N S MTSWENI: Madam Speaker, 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 Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA held its 10th
conference from 6 to 8 October, which also marked its 10th
anniversary; and
(b) the traditional leaders held the conference with the theme
``Bridging the Gap between the Old and the New, Urban and
Rural";
(2) congratulates Contralesa on the successful conference and the unanimous election of Inkosi S P Holomisa (Ah Dilizintaba) as President;
(3) wishes Contralesa success in its mission to restore the pride and dignity of the institution of traditional leadership; and
(4) looks forward to the constructive role the organisation will play as we chart the way forward for a better life for all the people of South Africa.
[Applause.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP and the Democratic Alliance …
The SPEAKER: Hon Mr Gibson, please take your seat.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, I am concerned about some of the proceedings in the House yesterday. We agreed on new question time. We agreed on allocation of notices of motion amongst political parties. It is something that has been co-operated about, and members have agreed on it. I think it has helped us to proceed in a way where everyone has an opportunity to participate.
Notices of motion are always used by members, not only here, but everywhere, to score political points. I accept that. I am glad, Mr Gibson, that you are so surprised, but perhaps I have a perception which you may not share. That is accepted, and I will not intervene there.
I am concerned that this is not done in a way which is unnecessarily provocative and is going to endanger proceedings or undermine the House. Notices of motion are given by individual members, but the slots have been allocated on behalf of political parties.
I want to alert members here. I had a discussion with representatives of the DP after the formation of the alliance, and it was clear that the constitutional position was that there could be no Democratic Alliance until the next election, unless legislation was introduced. That is the constitutional position.
We discussed what would happen if members here raised it. At that time, I said that I was sure parties were not going to score political points out of this. Obviously, I was mistaken.
I want to appeal to members to not endanger proceedings that we have striven to extend for a very long time to come to agreement on. This is an appeal to the House. We can go on with points of order. We can go on being provocative. I do not believe that it is going to assist the House.
Mr Gibson, please proceed.
Mr D H M GIBSON: I will have a very unprovocative notice of motion. Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) has learnt with consternation that the cost of the arms acquisitions has escalated to beyond R43,8 billion, with no final figure predicted;
(2) notes that there are serious allegations of impropriety relating to the awarding of the tenders and sub-tenders, and that there are further allegations that the countertrade benefits have been grossly exaggerated; and
(3) resolves, in the circumstances, that immediately after the Public Accounts Committee has reported to Parliament, an all-party committee should be established aimed at reassessing the benefits to South Africa of continuing with the arms purchases.
Dr R RABINOWITZ: Madam Speaker, 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 -
(a) the closure of a number of small-scale incinerators used to
dispose of medical waste;
(b) the state of disorder that exists in the co-ordination of
medical waste disposal procedures; and
(c) the absence of clear lines of responsibility and accountability
between the Department of Health, the Department of Water
Affairs and Forestry and the Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism with regard to medical waste disposal; and
(d) the poor state of policing of unlicensed dumps
(2) calls on the Ministers of these departments urgently to co-ordinate efforts to -
(a) achieve clarity with regard to medical waste disposal
procedures;
(b) close the gaps that exist in waste transportation;
(c) investigate the most modern methods for the disposal of waste to
replace incinerators; and
(d) find better interim solutions than that of requesting permission
from Water Affairs to dump medical waste in landfill sites.
Mr J P CRONIN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move, without any other qualification, on behalf of the ANC:
[Laughter.]
That the House -
(1) notes the admission by Banking Council of SA CEO, Bob Tucker, that South Africa’s home loan market is dangerously limited, and is failing to meet the needs of hundreds of thousands of South Africans earning less than R4 000 a month;
(2) recognises that millions of South Africans experience inadequate or no service from the banking sector, suffering redlining, racism, excessive banking charges and unregulated blacklisting by credit bureaus; and
(3) calls upon all South Africans to support the ANC-Alliance October campaign for the transformation of the banking sector.
[Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Mr Cronin, I do note, with appreciation, that you are aware that there are other parties in South Africa who may not be represented in the House as parties. [Laughter.]
Mr A BLAAS: Madam Speaker, 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 -
(a) the irresponsible remarks by Deputy President, Jacob Zuma, that
has further thrown South Africa down the abyss of economic
stagnation; and
(b) that his remarks have directly led to the rand reaching a record
low against the dollar; and
(2) urges the Government and Deputy President Zuma to take heed of Tito Mboweni’s distress on the matter, stop the kowtowing to President Mugabe and directly condemn his land-grab policies that are detrimental to the whole Southern African region, for which South Africans are paying dearly in terms of rands, and does not give the slightest hope to any of the jobless and poor people of South Africa.
[Interjections.]
Mr M N RAMODIKE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) notes with dismay and disappointment the slump of the rand to a record low of R7,40 to a dollar as a result of the ambiguous and conflicting statements made by the Deputy President at a regional investment conference in Namibia about the land reform policies in Zimbabwe;
(2) is concerned that the South African economy may also plunge into crisis as a result of the support given to the land reform policies of Zimbabwe by the Southern African leaders at this conference;
(3) is concerned further that the International Monetary Fund and other key Western donors including the World Bank suspended aid to Zimbabwe a year ago over its economic policies;
(4) notes that the US business group considers Southern Africa as a ``high risk’’ investment region, and warns that the South African Government’s continued support of the notorious land reform policies in Zimbabwe may result in political uncertainty and may also tarnish the image of this country, in spite of the good and acceptable land reform policies that are enshrined in our Constitution; and
(5) calls on the South African Government to take all the necessary precautions to avoid the inheritance from Zimbabwe of a political infection, lack of confidence, credibility and economic instability.
[Interjections.]
Ms F HAJAIG: Madam Speaker, 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 -
(a) the brutal attack on Betty Zuma and her 18-month-old baby by two
pit bull terriers in Brakpan;
(b) that the baby was fatally savaged and the mother severely
injured in this attack; and
(c) that this is one of many incidents involving attacks on humans
by pit bull terriers;
(2) reiterates our call for an in-depth evaluation of the practise of ownership and breeding of pit bull terriers; and
(3) calls on the Government to deal with this problem urgently.
[Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die AEB sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) met sorg kennis neem van die voorval in Potgietersrus waar gepoog is om drie lede van die plaaslike kommando na ure te arresteer op ‘n vermeende klag van aanranding teenoor ‘n persoon wat van diefstal verdink is;
(2) toegee dat hierdie drie manne onverhoord deur die pers veroordeel is;
(3) daarvan kennis neem dat -
(a) 'n woordvoerder van die ANC die wens uitgespreek het dat hierdie
drie manne moet ``verrot in die tronk'', voordat die feite van
die saak regtelik getoets is;
(b) dat die klag teen die vermeende oortreder aanvanklik teruggetrek
is, maar later op meerdere getuienis heropen is; en
(4) vra dat -
(a) alle betrokkenes, die pers ingesluit, versoek word om versigtig
met vermeende feite om te gaan voordat 'n onverhoorde oordeel
gevel word; en
(b) dat groter samewerking tussen die polisie en die plaaslike
kommando's moet geskied ter beveiliging van die omgewing. (Translation of Afrikaans motion follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the AEB:
That the House -
(1) notes with concern the incident at Potgietersrus, where an after- hours attempt was made to arrest three members of the local commando on an alleged charge of assault on a theft suspect;
(2) concedes that these three men have been found guilty without a trial by the press;
(3) notes that -
(a) a spokesperson of the ANC has expressed the wish that these
three men should ``rot in jail'', even before the facts of the
case have been tested judicially; and
(b) originally the charge against the suspected thief was withdrawn,
but that due to further evidence it was later reinstated; and
(4) asks -
(a) that everyone involved, including the press, be requested to
handle the perceived facts with care before passing judgement
without a trial; and
(b) for better co-operation to be established between the police and
the local commando so as to safeguard the area.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the PAC:
That the House -
(1) notes the death of the world’s first woman Prime Minister, Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike, who was the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, colonially known as Ceylon;
(2) further notes that Mrs Bandaranaike was elected as Prime Minister of her country three times, and that she played an important role in the anticolonial struggle and in the Cold War between the USA and the now- collapsed USSR; and
(3) notes that the PAC salutes the leadership of Mrs Bandaranaike which should be an inspiration to our women and demonstrates the capability of women as leaders.
[Applause.]
Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, 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 -
(a) that the ANC Women's League has launched a campaign to highlight
the plight of children in the northern suburbs of Cape Town; and
(b) that there has been a very high incidence of violence, abuse and
brutal murder of little children over the past few weeks in
these areas; and
(2) calls on all peace-loving South Africans to unconditionally support the ANC Women’s League’s programme to campaign for the rights of children.
[Applause.]
Mr J SELFE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) looks forward to the launch of the Democratic Alliance’s national campaign for the local government elections on Saturday afternoon in Cape Town; and [Interjections.]
(2) notes the fact that the Democratic Alliance will contest the ANC in over 2000 wards in the coming elections, and that the DA will take its message and campaign into all corners of South Africa without making empty promises, in stark contrast to the ANC’s promises made in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999, without any meaningful delivery.
[Applause.]
Prince N E ZULU: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) is appalled by reports that a substantial number of educators molest and even rape underaged school children;
(2) notes that the Aids pandemic cannot be effectively dealt with when adults may possibly infest young and innocent children with the virus;
(3) is of the opinion that -
(a) the police must act swiftly and diligently to bring perpetrators
to book; and
(b) the Department of Education should take harsh measures against
offending educators; and
(4) appeals to parents and school governing bodies to engage in awareness programmes to alert children to take precautions and report unbecoming behaviour by educators.
Mrs M P COETZEE-KASPER: Madam Speaker, 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 escalating criminal acts against innocent citizens occurring in trains;
(2) believes that trains are an important means of transport for less affluent citizens and that they have a right to use this means of transport without fear; and
(3) calls on Spoornet to improve security on trains, and on rail commuters and citizens of South Africa to assist in stamping out criminal acts on trains. [Applause.]
Mnr J SCHIPPERS: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) kennis neem -
(a) van die nuwe samestelling van die Stadsraad van Ceres nadat 4
stadsraadslede uit die ANC bedank het en die Witzenberg
Onafhanklike Vereniging gevorm het wat nou saam met die Nuwe NP
die Stadsraad van Ceres beheer; en
(b) dat die vier voormalige ANC-stadsraadslede ongelukkig is oor die
gebrek aan deursigtigheid binne die ANC met die samestelling van
kandidaatlyste en omdat daar volgens inligting van hoër gesag af
ingemeng is om ander kandidate te akkommodeer; en
(2) aanvaar dat die ANC nie die vermoë het om sy steun in die Wes-Kaap te behou nie en dat sy bestaande steunbasis besig om te verbrokkel as gevolg van beloftes wat nie nagekom word nie en dat net vriende en familie voordeel trek uit die ANC-regering. (Translation of Afrikaans motion follows.)
[Mr J SCHIPPERS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) the new composition of the Ceres town council after four
councillors resigned from the ANC and formed the Witzenberg
Independent Association which now, together with the New NP,
controls the Ceres Town Council; and
(b) that the four former ANC councillors are dissatisfied because of
the lack of transparency within the ANC as regards the
compilation of candidate lists and because, according to
information, there was interference from higher authority in
order to accommodate other candidates; and
(2) accepts that the ANC does not have the power to retain its support in the Western Cape and that its current support base is crumbling because of promises that are not being kept, and that only friends and relatives can benefit from the ANC Government.]
SECOND ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL
(Introduction)
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Madam Speaker, hon members, today I am introducing the 2000 adjustments estimate before Parliament. Hon members are asked to consider requests for funds for the 2000-01 that are in addition to those appropriated in the main estimate which we tabled in Parliament in February this year.
In the 2000 Budget we budgeted for a total expenditure of R233,5 billion this year. The adjustments estimate before the House today seeks to raise the level of spending to R235,2 billion.
This is the first time that the adjustments estimate is considered within the ambit of the Public Finance Management Act. This Act, as we know, stresses better management of Government moneys and assets, and introduces stronger measures on accountability to Parliament and the public.
In terms of the Public Finance Management Act, adjustments to the Budget are allowed only under certain narrow and specific conditions, the major one being unforeseeable and unavoidable expediture that we could not reasonably predict at the start of the financial year.
Thus, this exercise is not primarily about policy choices. Rather it is about adjustments to the Main Budget.
The adjustments estimate also provides for the roll over of unspent funds from the past year, and several shifts of funds or reallocations.
The 2000 adjustments estimate tells a promising story for national departmental spending in the medium-term. Firstly, recent trends show that certain national departments, including the Departments of Trade and Industry, Water Affairs and Forestry, and Health, are beginning to overcome the capacity problems that contributed to underspending on these votes in previous years. Secondly, the additional allocations proposed in the adjustment estimate show that, for most part, national departments are managing their spending within the allocations voted by Parliament earlier this year.
But, as I have mentioned, the Treasury Committee is empowered to approve additional allocations if the expenditure is unforeseeable and unavoidable. Let me give hon members an example of such expenditure, for which my colleague, the hon Valli Moosa may be obliged to provide this House with a more detailed account.
It involves the loss of six fuel storage tanks somewhere in the southern oceans. Before hon members think that such a loss was evironmentally insensitive, or just plain carelessness of Minister Moosa and his department, they should allow me to explain the circumstances.
The tanks, admittedly, were hard to lose. They weigh 81/2 tons each and are painted bright orange. Normally they sit on a huge ice shelf - about 300 kilometres long - that projects from the edge of the southern-most continent into the Atlantic Ocean. When one of our ships arrives to refuel the tanks before they are pulled across the icy wastes back to the South African base in Antarctica by a caterpillar tractor, they are moved about 2 km from the edge of the shelf. Last summer, though, the unforeseeable, if not the unthinkable, happened. The edge - all 17 km of it - broke off. An iceberg the size of 17 rugby pitches and about 35 metres above the water floated off with our tanks.
Fortunately, nobody was there at the time, so we did not risk any lives. But when our ship arrived later, it spotted this floating ice platform and the crew tried to retrieve the tanks. But the iceberg was higher than the ship. A German ship in the area tried to help us, and so did a Russian vessel. We tried cranes and winches but nothing could reach the iceberg, which was being propelled, as it was, by strong winds and currents. Neither South African nor Russian helicopters could lift the storage tanks, because they were just too heavy.
The tanks were empty, as they always are when they await the ships - one blessing! They are especially sealed to avoid contamination. But they are gone. An unforeseeable expense? Perhaps Minister Moosa will say that we could have predicted the global warming, but to pinpoint its effects to time and place? We think not. Unavoidable? I am told that if one had been on that ship looking up at the iceberg with the tanks sailing past, one would agree.
How much did this adventure at sea cost us? A total of R1,2 million - a small percentage of the Budget perhaps, but nonetheless we still require Minister Moosa to explain this unforeseeable event in detail to the Treasury Committee. I think Parliament, of course, has the right to ask for even further details of this.
There were other such expenses too closer to home and affecting more of our people. We propose additional amounts of R300 million to national departments for flood-related expenditure. This includes extra allocations to the Department of Transport, which received R41 million for the reconstruction of flood-damaged infrastructure, and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, which was allocated R153 million to repair water- related infrastructure. A further R50 million goes to the Disaster Relief Fund that is administered by the Department of Social Development.
Other departments that were involved in the post-flood reconstruction were Agriculture and Health. The Department of Agriculture also received an allocation to deal with the break of foot-and-mouth disease, and the Department of Health received one for combating malaria epidemic. Both diseases were exacerbated by the floods.
Approximately R318 million is recommended for the Independent Electoral Commission to run local government elections. A further R95 million is allocated to the Department of Foreign Affairs for exchange rate depreciation and for our UN commitment, as requested.
Other unforeseaable and unavoidable expenditure at national level amounts to R265 million.
These allocations are set out in detail in the explanatory notes that are tabled alongside the adjustments estimate for hon member’s consideration. For each vote, an explanatory memorandum is provided, outlining the function shifts proposed, amounts rolled over from the past year, unavoidable additional expenditure and other adjustments.
The adjustments Budget also takes account of the requirements of provinces and local government. Some provinces were clearly severely affected by the floods last summer. These caused extensive damage to roads, schools, clinics and other social and economic infrastructure. An amount of R300 million was allocated in the main Budget for infrastructure spending to four of the provinces that suffered the most damage - the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and the Northern Province.
The adjustments estimate makes available a further R595 million to provinces to continue rebuilding infrastructures that were damaged in the floods. This will be financed partly from unallocated funds that were initially reserved for poverty relief and infrastructure investment.
The adjustments estimate further includes R600 million to cover other unforeseeable and unavoidable expenditure at provincial level. We should remember that provinces are mainly responsible for the delivery of social services in the country, and our Government puts heavy emphasis on this social spending. This allocation assists provinces in accommodating pressing spending pressures in education, health care and welfare services.
A substantial share of this allocation will go to the child support grant. This programme was introduced two years ago at a rate of R100 per child under the age of seven years. At the time it was projected that the grant would cover just over 3 million children across the country and that the target would be reached by 2002-03, which translates to just over R3 billion.
As people learn about the grant and the systems to register beneficiaries improve, the take-up rate is accelerating. This has contributed to an increased expenditure on welfare from 17,8% of total provincial expenditure in 1996-97 to a budgeted level of 19% in the current financial year. It is gratifying to note the improved service delivery capacity of provincial welfare departments that has contributed to increased take-up of the grant.
We recognise that local authorities will incur additional costs owing to demarcation and amalgamation of municipal areas following elections later this year. An amount of R100 million is allocated to local government to assist with these additional expenses.
Let me comment briefly on two adjustments by Treasury that affect allocations to the provinces and all national departments. Firstly, we have an estimated salary and fuel costs increases. The recent agreement with public sector unions in the 2000 salary negotiations provides for an average salary increase of 6,5%. The increase is higher than the budgeted for provision of 5,5%, but is in line with the expected inflation for the financial year.
We also recognise that high fuel costs will impact on departmental budgets. An additional R820 million is therefore allocated to national and provincial departments to accommodate improvements in conditions of service and higher costs associated with rising fuel prices.
Secondly, there is the payment of birthday bonuses from January to March
- In the old days, there was no such thing as a thirteenth cheque in the Public Service. Public servants, I am told, got holiday bonuses in September - R240 if one was married and R120 if one was single. I am not sure what would have happened if there were polygamous marriages, but this was all that was allowed for. I suppose the assumption was that one could keep a civil servant happy if one paid for at least one trip to Durban a year. When the holiday bonuses were changed to a 13th cheque - about 20 years ago - this was conveniently announced after the holidays in January. But there was no money left in the last three months of the fiscal year to pay for those whose birthdays fell between January and March. So, everybody born between January and April was paid in April. Of such details, our history is made.
Now the Government is officially recognising that people can be born in the last three months of the financial year. We were persuaded in this by Minister Valli Moosa who does not qualify for a 13th cheque because he is a Member of Parliament. But he was born, he told us, within the first three years of the fiscal year. Sorry, the first three months of the calender year, rather. We will now pay them their bonuses in their proper birthday months, a system which employees have indicated they prefer. It will also make our cash flow during the financial year a lot smoother. This will cost us R975 million this year to bring that forward from April to this fiscal year. I should point out that it is a once-off expenditure. It will save us money next April, as we will only be paying bonuses to those who actually have birthdays in that month.
There are other minor adjustments for self-financing expenditure. Correctional Services, for instance, will be allowed to retain R2,2 million obtained through the sale of products. Education received various donations to fund the National Teacher Awards and the SADC Essay Competition, whilst Enviromental Affairs and Tourism will receive R10 million to assist in cleaning up the aftermath of the ``treasure’’ oil spill, which we expect to recover from the insurers, and which may go some way, in an ecological sense, to off-setting the missing tanks.
The adjustments estimate provide for roll-overs of R2,077 billion from last year. At this stage, we anticipate that about R2 billion will be unspent this year, leaving a balance of R77 million to add to the expected level of expenditure. In all, the adjustments estimate provides for R3,9 billion in additional expenditure. At the time of the main Budget, we set aside R2 billion for these contingencies. The House will be pleased to know that the shortfall of R1,9 billion will be made up without affecting the deficit.
Income tax is expected to amount to R1,3 billion more than budgeted, mainly due to higher collection on companies, secondary tax on companies, and tax on retirement funds. And greater consumption of imported goods over the past year has meant higher VAT collections.
I am pleased to be able to report that we now expect total revenue to be R1,8 billion higher than the February estimates, and the costs of servicing debt would be R142 million less than the budget estimate. This leaves a deficit unchanged at about 2,6% of GDP.
In conclusion, let me say that the changing weather patterns, both in the Antarctic and Mpumalanga, account for several of the allocations the House is asked to consider. Perhaps, again my colleague in Environmental Affairs and Tourism can direct his attention to the global warming that causes the ice shelf to crack up or the floods in the Lowveld. In fact, the cracking of the ice shelf cause the floods in the Lowveld there. It is the same kind of logic that says that something the Deputy President said in Namibia yesterday must have caused the rand to move. It is the same kind of logic. [Laughter.] But for the moment, such predictions are beyond the scope of the Treasury. However, we believe - and the Treasury committee aims to ensure - that technical adjustments are minimised. We are proud of the fact that the adjustments of the total expenditure level is modest - about 0,8%.
We know we cannot foresee everything and we also know that our duty, as an elected Government, is to be flexible enough to meet the needs of our people when they suffer severe losses, as was the case with the terrible floods last summer. But we hope that through our planning, consultations, and through the knowledge of our country - and indeed the world - we will soon arrive at a st a:situation in which our contingency provision covers the expenditure that is simply not possible to budget for.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the President, members of the Treasury committee and my Cabinet colleagues for their support and commitment to ensure fiscal discipline and targeted spending that gives our country real value for money. [Applause.]
FIREARMS CONTROL BILL
(Second Reading debate) The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Madam Speaker, the new Firearms Control Bill is a milestone in the criminal justice system of South Africa. It introduces a new era in the battle against violent crime.
It would not have been possible to achieve the high standards set in this Bill without the active involvement of South African citizens in the consultation process. I would like to thank everyone who has made representations to the portfolio committee. These contributions from all the opposing perspectives on gun control have made it possible to achieve the insight needed to produce a well-balanced result.
It is clear from the inputs received by the portfolio committee from the variety of witnesses, including Gun-free South Africa and particularly the women’s groups, that there is an overwhelming support for our endeavour to deal a decisive blow against firearm violence. [Applause.] I can assure members that their support for our campaigns against criminal elements is valued very highy.
A special word of appreciation must be given to Mr George and the portfolio committee for their work on this Bill. The professional way in which this committee has dealt with the opposing perspectives presented to them, epitomises the value of true democracy. Many constructive changes were made to the original draft, demonstrating an unequivocal commitment to the values on which the new South African society is based. A special word of sincere gratitude also goes to everyone who has assisted the portfolio committee in its daunting task.
Firearms are almost, without exception, at the centre of all instances involving serious violence in South Africa. In many of these instances there is also a link with alcohol or drug abuse. These facts receive special recognition in the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill is not aimed at law-abiding citizens. On the contrary, it embodies their indignation against firearm violence and sends a strong message that enough is enough. We will not tolerate the perpetration of violence any longer and we shall fight it with all the means at our disposal. The Bill is a decisive step to achieve this goal.
The Bill is aimed at strict and efficient gun control without sacrificing legitimate needs of citizens to posses firearms. Its ultimate goal is to disarm the criminals without compromising the rights of innocent persons to defend themselves. Accordingly, severe penalties of up to 25 years imprisonment may be imposed on criminals who are found guilty of illegal trafficking in firearms, or who are caught with unlicensed firearms.
On the other hand, a legal firearm owner, without any special need for a large number of firearms, will be allowed to licence a handgun or shotgun for purposes of self-defence, and in circumstance where such a firearm would not provide sufficient protection, he or she will also be allowed a semi-automatic rifle or a shotgun for self-defence.
Furthermore, the legal firearm owner will be allowed to use any hunting or sports shooting firearm licenced to him or her - ie up to three additional firearms for occasional hunters or sport shooters - for self-defence.
That would give him or her a more than adequate choice of firearms to use for self-defence in terms of this Bill. This fact demonstrates conclusively that the Bill will ensure that legal gun owners are empowered to arm themselves properly against any onslaught from criminal elements. There are, accordingly, no grounds for any concern that the Bill might disarm honest citizens.
The Bill introduces a variety of measures aimed at disarming the criminals and ensuring that they will not escape from the new longer arm of the law. The registrar will not be allowed to issue out firearm licences to criminals. Furthermore, licenced gun owners who become criminals will be declared unfit to own firearms and their firearms will be seized and destroyed. This disqualification will not only be applicable to persons who are guilty of violent crimes and sexual abuse, with special emphasis on the evil of domestic violence, but also to those who are guilty of crimes involving dishonesty, or the abuse of alcohol or drugs.
The Bill introduces a dispensation in which the competence of gun-owners will be ensured. It provides for competency training and testing for every person applying for a firearm licence, unfitness declaration by the courts and the registrar, and for periodic relicencing, to ensure that persons who are or who become incompetent are not allowed to have firearms in their possession. The Bill allows the police to obtain and examine fingerprints and other body prints, as well as genetic and other bodily samples to include or exclude persons as suspects. Investigative powers granted in the Bill go beyond those presently at the disposal of the police in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act and other empowering legislation. A hi-tech information network linked to a comprehensive, up-to-date database will be the cornerstone of the new infrastructure which will ensure the efficiency of the investigation of firearm-related crimes. This will not only include all the information which may be necessary for the efficient investigation of crime, but will also feature ultramodern facilities such as the electronic identification of fingerprints.
Although the Bill does not create reversed onus presumption, it limits the rights of persons accused of possessing firearms without a licence. The limitation is done in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Constitution and with due regard to the judgments of our Constitutional Court. The presumptions will level the playing field and empower the prosecuting authority to prevent unwarranted acquittals.
No unjustified inbalance is created by these presumptions, because the onus will be on the state to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the accused will, in appropriate circumstances, be forced to produce evidence to create a reasonable doubt or to risk conviction by remaining silent where a presumption of possession of a firearm is raised against him or her in court.
The Bill recognises the need to involve every citizen in the fight against the proliferation of illegal firearms. It places a duty on everyone to be alert to the existence of illegal firearms and to provide the police with all the relevant information to empower the criminal justice system to deal with those offenders.
Anyone who wishes to shirk this responsibility and to side with the possessor of an illegal firearm will also acquire the obligation to share the punishment. Boontjie kry sy loontjie. [You reap what you sow].
Many legal firearms in South Africa have found their way into the hands of criminals and have become illegal firearms. The Firearms Control Bill is calculated to halt this unacceptable trend. Not only private individuals, but also the state must ensure that firearms are kept out of the reach of criminals. Accordingly, the Bill will ensure that private gun owners are empowered, through competency training, with all the skills of a responsible gun ownership.
In recognition of the fact that official institutions, including the SA Police Service and the SA National Defence Force, share the blame with private individuals for the current proliferation of all illegal firearms, an entire chapter of the Bill is devoted to ensuring more efficient control over state-owned firearms. These measures include a permit system, reliable databases of state-owned firearms and a variety of other provisions aimed at enhancing strict and reliable control over these firearms. I shall also assume personal responsibility to promulgate regulations which will set very high standards of competence for official employees who may be issued with state-owned firearms.
In view of the fact that licenced firearms provide a pool of firearms that may be stolen or otherwise acquired illegally by criminals, it is necessary to restrict the number of these firearms by licencing only those firearms for which a legitimate need exists.
Although the Bill does not restrict the number of firearms which may be acquired by businesses which use firearms as tools of their trade, or by dedicated hunters, dedicated sports persons and firearm collectors, the test for the acquisition of every licence is the existence of a real need for that firearm. Persons who do not comply with the requirements of the Bill to fall within one of these categories will normally not be allowed to acquire more than four firearms, of which a maximum of two may be handguns.
The Bill focuses on the limitation of the number of handguns, because it is mostly handguns that are used in the commission of firearm crimes in South Africa. Handguns are also the prime target of criminals who steal firearms to use in the commission of crimes. I tender no apology for the severe penalties that are imposed on those who dare defy the provisions of the Bill.
People who facilitate the provision of illegal firearms to criminals or who otherwise contribute to the development of a culture of illegal firearm possession are dangerous criminals themselves and must suffer the consequences of their socially destructive behaviour. The maximum penalty of 25 years provided for in the Bill in appropriate cases should indicate to potential criminals that we will not tolerate their deviant conduct and that we shall not hesitate to remove them from society.
The Bill provides for administrative fines to be imposed by the registrar in certain circumstances. These fines are very high in appropriate case and will ensure effective punishment of offenders without overburdening our courts. Designated firearms officers will be appointed at police station level, to assume responsibility for all matters relating to the implementation of the the firearm legislation. These officers will play a pivotal role in the new despensation. They will represent the authority of the registrar at local level and ensure compliance with the legislation all over South Africa.
Gun ownership requires a very high level of responsibility. The appropriate age of responsibility was debated extensively in the portfolio committee. According to some of the witness who have made representations to the committee, the age limit should be determined at 25. After due consideration of all the representations, it was decided that persons of and above the age of 21 will be allowed to obtain competency certificates in terms of this Bill.
This age limit may be lowered if special circumstances require a younger person to acquire the firearm licence. Such circumstances may include the fact that such younger person is a dedicated hunter or a sportsperson, a business owner or is fully employed and needs a competency certificate or a firearm licence in his or her possession.
In conclusion, I would like to avail myself of the opportunity, once again, to thank all those who have made the finalisation of this legislation possible. They must be assured that they have contributed to a worthy cause that will make a decisive difference in the fight against crime in our country.
Then, just a small notice, on page 12, line 35, in clause 9(3) the word
not'' must be inserted between the wordsis’’ and ``unfit’’.
[Applause.]
Mr M E GEORGE: Madam Speaker, hon Minister Tshwete, hon Ministers and hon members, I rise to support this Bill which is an honest and serious step towards bringing down the levels of crime in our country. There can be no doubt that South Africa faces enormous challenges in its efforts to bring down the levels of violent crimes which is our inheritance of decades of injustice, underdevelopment, repression and revolution. We must accept, from the very onset, that there are no easy solutions and quick fixes. No one piece of legislation will solve the problems of crime in this country.
This Bill aims at making a contribution towards lowering the levels of crime, but it is not a solution to all the ills of crime in this society. The Bill is based on the premise that increased availability and abuse of firearms and ammunition has contributed significantly to the high levels of crime in our society, as it is put in our preamble. I know some members were very set against that preamble, but that preamble states what is happening in this country. It states the facts. It does not state what people would like to know or hear.
The purpose of this Bill is to prevent the proliferation of illegal firearms, and usher in strict control over legal firearms. The legal supply of firearms is fuelled by losses and thefts of legally owned firearms from both the individuals and the state. So, the argument that the people who own firearms legally are all responsible people is false. [Interjections.]
Hon MEMBER: They are not!
Mr M E GEORGE: Madam Speaker, when this Bill was introduced there were hues and cries about the draft process. Some people alleged that there was a conspiracy by the secretariat and some foreign countries to disarm white people in South Africa. The pro-gun lobby groups repeated this, even suggesting that there is a hidden agenda by the state to disarm law-abiding citizens in order to embark on a genocide. [Interjections.] Some pro-gun lobby groups even said our country is more like Burundi to the extent that what we are doing is a black government which is aimed at killing people. [Interjections.] Again, those remarks were unfortunate. [Interjections.]
Some of the members in this Parliament threatened to leave the country if this Bill becomes law. [Interjections.] Mr M E GEORGE: Mr Chairperson, I must say that we have traveled a long way since those emotional outbursts. [Interjections.] During the debate, nobody talked about leaving, and all the MPs are still in this Parliament. [Laughter.] Nobody, in the process of debating and understanding each other, even talked about the intentions of disarming whites. Almost all the parties, in spite of their differences, did admit that this was an honest endeavour to deal with crime, regardless of whether there were shortcomings or not, it was agreed that the aim was to deal with crime.
I want to say that the passing of this Bill is a major victory for democracy in South Africa. This Bill gives powers and simplifies the work of the police to deal with violent crimes. We will, of course, as this Parliament, exercise our oversight to make sure that these powers are not abused. All parties in our portfolio committee agreed that there is a firearm problem in South Africa. They also agreed that there is a need to make sure that firearms are in the possession of highly responsible people.
To show how parties have moved closer together on these issues, Chapter 5 which deals with competency certificates was unanimously endorsed by all parties. There were, in actual fact, few sections which some opposition parties did not agree with. I hope that those who were not in our committee will not come here and disagree with what we had agreed upon in the portfolio committee. [Laughter.] [Interjections.]
This, to me, is a positive development if one considers the negative atmosphere at the beginning of the discussion. Let me state categorically that the aim of this Bill, as the Minister said, is not to disarm whites or law-abiding citizens. It is in the interests of the ANC that there is peace and stability in this country, so that it can hasten its transformation programme. There is no way therefore that the ANC can, on its own, create destabilisation in this country, because disarming whites would create the opposite of what we want to achieve.
Some opposition parties voiced strong opposition to powers given to the Minister. The ANC is very clear about the role of different structures of Government, especially that of the executive and the legislature. But we must accept that it would be practically impossible for the Minister to come to Parliament for every action as other parties would like us to believe. [Interjections.] On key policy issues, … [Interjections.] … Parliament must still approve the actions of the Minister, such as with clause 140 which deals with amnesty.
People complained about relicencing and retesting for competency certificates. But, strangely, all of us agreed that people do change in terms of their behaviour, whether that is forced by circumstance or new conditions of life. What harm does it cause if one is tested and found to be still fit to own a firearm?
There were also allegations that the Central Firearms Register is in a complete mess and will not cope with the new demands. Our visit, by all parties on Friday, to the Central Firearms Register did not only reveal that they are ready and well-organised, but that they are well in advance in preparing for the new law. The designated Firearm Officer pilot project is already in operation in the Western Cape, and 35 police stations have been targeted.
There were comparisons with Canada which, to me, were ill-considered as Canada had to start everything from scratch. It was because of this that Canada had to spend huge sums of money. But South Africa is not like Canada. Here we have a Central Firearms Register which has been operating for years, and all members agreed that it is well-equipped.
While institutions will be exempted from the competency certificate, the members of these institutions will not be exempted. The Minister, in the regulations, will come with mechanisms testing these members and their testing will be even stricter than that of members of society, as they are supposed to be exemplary.
The question that the department must still consider seriously is: What do we do with members who fail the competency certificate? That the national commissioner must still consider seriously. I want to touch briefly on the issue of firearms for self-defence. Anthony Altbeker’s recent research, which examined closed dockets, reveals that this thing of firearms for self- defence is a myth. Victims in possession of firearms were nearly four times more likely to have their firearms stolen than to use them in self-defence. In only 4% of the cases examined was a firearm actually used by the victim of a third party defence and in only 2% of cases was the victim able to use his firearm in self-defence. So the question of people possessing firearms for self-defence is a myth.
While a firearm can assist a potential victim to resist attack, the chances of doing so are moderated by it being the attacker’s privilege to dictate the circumstances under which the crime will take place. As to why we do not target handguns as some people suggested - that is pistols and revolvers, which are used prominently to commit crime - the answer is simple: We cannot make laws piecemeal. What happens when criminals change to another firearm? Do we have to come to Parliament and make law for rifles? That does not make sense. We must accept that firearms cause misery and they are used in the killing of police officers, in the taxi violence, in domestic violence and in other sexual abuses like rape.
While we would have liked the age limit to be raised to 25 years, we were persuaded to accept 21 years as a reasonable age. Most people involved in crime in South Africa are between the ages of 17 and 24, and that is why we would have preferred 25 years. At the age of 25 years, one has reached a maturity level and acquired responsibility that make crime less attractive. What makes us comfortable is that reaching the age of 21 years does not necessarily means that one will automatically get a competency certificate. One will still have to go through competency testing procedures which will help as a safeguard to make sure that firearms are in responsible hands.
I want to say to those people who will have excess firearms when this Bill becomes law that they have five years to sell their excess firearms, failing which they will have to surrender them to the state for destruction. Unfortunately, if they cannot sell them themselves they cannot expect the state to compensate them, as the state will only be taking them for destruction. The transitional arrangements are fair and adequate to cover any initial problems.
I want to thank all parties for their co-operation. I also want to mention Dr Fangroff and his team for their sterling work and the legal team of the department led by Adv Louis Kok. Without their assistance, finishing this Bill would have been a complete nightmare. I want to thank the people who supported this Bill and even those who did not support it, because, even though they did not support the Bill, their arguments made us wiser in drafting this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr V B NDLOVU: Madam Speaker and the honourable House, the Firearms Control Bill is one of the more controversial Bills to have come before the National Assembly in recent years. Over the past few months, members of the portfolio committee have heard testimony from many members of the public and from representatives of various organisations reflecting a wide variety of attitudes towards the Bill. We have listened to them and we have learned from them.
This Bill arises out of the alarming increase in illegal weapons in South Africa. Illegal weapons come from many sources, but in recent years the number of firearms falling into criminal hands as a result of loss, theft and robbery of licensed firearms has dramatically increased. The IFP does not doubt the need for tighter laws to address this serious situation. Nevertheless, our approach to the Bill is to ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance between reducing the number of firearms in circulation and protecting the right of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for the purposes of self-defence, hunting and other leisure pursuits.
The IFP listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the public during the course of the public hearing into this Bill. The issues raised at the public hearing and our own experience indicated that the Bill required signicant amendments to ensure that its flaws were ironed out. Our main concern has been to reduce the unreasonable bureaucratic burden that the Bill placed upon the individual and the state. We have not been succesful in every case, but the majority party has shown a willingness to listen to arguments and make relevant amendments in certain areas, and we are grateful for that. The Bill as a result is much improved.
Our key concerns during the committee deliberations were the minimum age of ownership of firearms, the amnesty provisions, the rules on inherited firearms as they affected senior citizens, the schedule of penalties imposed by the Bill, the rules governing the implementation of different restrictions, regulations for different parts of South Africa and the issue of gun-free zones. The firearms Bill originally proposed the minimum age of 18 years. Our ANC colleagues, as Mluleki George was saying, raised this to 25 years. The IFP and some colleagues in the opposition parties agreed that an 18-year-old was too young to own a lethal weapon. Nevertheless, we felt that the ANC proposal of 25 years went too far. We all agreed, therefore, that 21 would be the right age accordingly, and we are thankful to the ANC for listening to that although, there were some hard blows.
We were also concerned not to place unfair requirements upon our elderly citizens.
Kulabo abanezibhamu ezamukelekile abazithola koyise nakoyisemkhulu kubonakale kungubuhlakani ukuba, uma sebekhulile ngeminyaka, izibhamu lezo abacela ukuthi kube ngezabo baye kozibhalisa ngokusemthethweni bathole namapheshana azo, bese bevuma ukuthi lezo zibhamu zilungiswe khona zingeke zikwazi ukudubula ukuze zihlale kungezabo ngaso sonke isikhathi futhi ukuze bakwazi ukuzigcina lezo zibhamu ngoba zisemthethweni.
Okunye esikhulume ngakho yilokhu kokuthi abantu mabaxolelwe ngokuthi banezibhamu ezingekho emthethweni. Kuzokhumbuleka ukuthi sicele ukuthi uNgqongqoshe angabaxoleli abantu engalulethile lapha uhla lwalabo bantu abafuna ukuxolelwa ukuze beze sizobabona ukuthi bangobani bona labo abagqiba izibhamu, nokuthi babezigqibelani zona lezo zibhamu bengazivezi isikhathi eside.
Kufuneka ngisho kuNgqongqoshe ukuthi besikhathazeke kakhulu, njengeqembu, sibona isikhathi sokuboshwa kwabantu sehlukene. Bekuthi lapho kuvela khona ukuhlukunyezwa kwabantu kuthiwe isigwebo esikhulu kunazo zonke yiminyaka emihlanu bese kuthi uma umuntu ekhohlwe ukutholela isibhamu sakhe imvume, ayesinikwe nguyisemkhulu, kuthiwe yiminyaka engama-25. Kodwa mangithokoze ngokuthi konke okwenzekile kuwulungisile lowo msebenzi ukuze kukwazi ukuqondana kahle ukuhlawuliswa kwabantu.
Ngifuna ukusho futhi kuNgqongqoshe ukuthi kwenziwe ngawo wonke amandla ukuthi uma uNgqongqoshe enza umsebenzi, akwazi ukuthintana nezifunda ukuze izifunda zonke zibe semgqeni owodwa ekwenzeni ukuthi lo mThetho-sivivinywa ukwazi ukusebenza kuwo wonke amacala. Ngakho-ke ngeke kwaba kuhle futhi ngeke kwaba ngubuhlakani ukuthi uNgqongqoshe adumbe nje isifunda esithile bese ethi kuleso sifunda izibhamu ezithile zizoqedwa kuso, uma engazange axhumane kahle nabanye ozakwabo bakulezo zifunda ukuze bakwazi ukubambisana naye khona izigebengu eziphethe izibhamu ezingekho emthethweni zizoboshwa.
Kufuneka ngisho futhi kuNgqongqoshe ukuthi siyathokoza kakhulu ngokuthi, kulezo zindawo esithi ziyizindawo okungephathwe zibhamu kuzo, uNgqongqoshe angakwazi ukubeka amandla okuthi bavikeleke abantu. UNgqongqoshe unelungelo lokuzisho lezo zindawo futhi akhululeke ukuzisho. Kodwa, kulezo zindawo ezifana nezikole namasonto, kuyoba kuhle indlela yakhe idlule kulabo bantu abaphethe lezo zindawo, njengemikhandlu ephethe izikole kanye nabadala bamasonto, kube yibona abamnika igunya uNgqongqoshe ukuze bakwazi ukubambisana naye ekwenzeni lowo msebenzi.
Mangisho kuNgqongqoshe ukuthi, ekuphethweni kwawo wonke lo msebenzi omkhulu kangaka, ngifuna ukubonga kakhulu kusihlalo ngokuthi uliyekile ikhanda lakhe elibukhuni - leli alifunda ebholeni lombhoxo - walalela uma sikhuluma ngenkathi senza lo msebenzi ukuze sikwazi ukwenza lo mThetho-sivivinywa ube nempumelelo. [Uhleko.]
Mangisho futhi kuNgqongqoshe ukuthi mayelana nokusebenza kwethu ngalo mThetho-sivivinywa, alikho nelilodwa iqembu eliphume lingenabo ubuhlakani bokuthi kuyadingeka ukuthi zincishiswe izibhamu ezikhona ezigcwele ezandleni ezingafanele. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)
[It will be wise of those who have inherited legal firearms from their grandparents to obtain licences for them when they are adult. They should accept that their firearms will be refurbished in such a way that they cannot shoot. This will be done so that they will remain theirs legally and forever.
Another thing that we mentioned was that people should not be forgiven when they have illegal firearms. It should be remembered that we said the hon the Minister should not forgive people without first bringing the list of their names here so that they will appear before us. This will enable us to know these people who hide guns and we will get to know why they are doing that and why the have not disclosed their guns for so long.
We were worried when we saw the difference in period during which people were arrested. When people had been victimised, it was said that the highest sentence was 5 imprisonment. But when a person forgot to obtain a licence of the gun that he inherited from his grandfather, he was sentenced 25 years in prison. I am happy that everything that has been done, involved the rectification of that error so that the pernalisation of people will be done in a correct manner. I would like to inform the hon the Minister that all possible means have been tried to ensure that when the hon the Minister does this job, is able to contact with all provinces so that they will be on one line in ensuring that this Bill applies in all cases. Therefore, it will not be good, and it will also not be a wise move if the hon the Minister targets one province and says he will confiscate all guns in that province, and doing this without first consulting with his counterparts in those provinces. He must first consult with them so that they will work together with him in arresting criminals who have illegal firearms.
I would also like to say to the hon the Minister that in the provinces that we termed as gunless, the hon the Minister can give certain powers so that people will be protected. The hon the Minister has a right to pinpoint those areas, and he must be free to do so. However, in institutions like schools and churches, it will be better if he first consults with people in those institutions, like school governing bodies and elders of the churches. It should be they who give him permission so that they will be able to co-operate with him in carrying out this task.
I would like to say to the hon the Minister that in concluding this big job, I thank the hon chairperson for not being stone-headed just for a change. He learned to be stone-headed when he was a rugby player. But in this case, instead of being stubborn, he listened when we were doing this job which enabled us to make this Bill a succeess. [Laughter.]
I would also like to say to the hon the Mininster that regarding the implimentation of this Bill, all political parties realised that there is a need to reduce firearms that are in the hands of the wrong people. [Applause.]]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Madam Speaker, the debate about firearms in South Africa is very different from the debate in other countries. In the United States, the debate is between those who argue that there should be no restriction at all on gun ownership and those who believe that there should be no guns at all in that country. In South Africa, the debate is between those, like the Democratic Alliance, the New NP, the DP and the FA, who strongly support regulated and responsible private ownership and use of firearms, and those who have naively misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented the link between legal and illegal firearms. This debate is not about burning emotions and sentimental attachment to firearms, as many of the more right-wing parties in this House have argued, nor is it about a rosy view of life held by the advocates of a South Africa free of guns.
It is about principles. The New NP, DP and FA’s position on this Bill has always been one that is based on principle. We support the right of South Africans to defend their families and their property. We support competency testing, responsible ownership and use of firearms, and we support strict sentencing of those who abuse their firearms.
Om ‘n wet te maak wat gebaseer is op fiksie is soos om ‘n huis te bou sonder ‘n fondament. Dit is van korte duur. Hierdie wetsontwerp is gebaseer op die aanname dat ‘n vermindering in die aantal wettige vuurwapens outomaties sal lei tot ‘n vermindering in die aantal onwettige vuurwapens. Soos die ontbrekende fondament ondermyn hierdie aanname alles wat hierdie wetsontwerp wil bereik.
Daar is geen oortuigende bewyse om hierdie aanname te bevestig nie. Tog is dit die argument wat die meeste gebruik word, soos weer vanmiddag, om hierdie wetsontwerp te verdedig. Die regulering van wettige vuurwapens en die vermindering van die aantal onwettige vuurwapens is twee heeltemal aparte kwessies wat deur middel van verskillende metodes en instrumente opgelos moet word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[To draft an Act which is based on fiction is like building a house without a foundation. It does not last long. This Bill is based on the assumption that a reduction in the number of legal firearms will automatically lead to a reduction in the number of illegal firearms. Like the missing foundation, this assumption undermines everything which this Bill seeks to achieve.
There is no convincing proof to confirm this assumption. Yet this is the argument which is most frequently advanced, as was again the case this afternoon, to defend this Bill. The regulation of legal firearms and the reduction of the number of illegal firearms are two totally separate issues which must be resolved by means of different methods and instruments.]
The chairperson of the committee, Mr George, publicly acknowledged that this Bill is not aimed at illegal firearms but rather at making it as difficult as possible to obtain a firearm. Making it difficult to obtain a firearm legally and making it difficult to obtain an illegal firearm are two very different things.
The sources of illegal firearms in South Africa are too numerous to mention, and many of the largest sources of illegal firearms in our country
- the police, army and the Government itself - are not even bound by the provisions of this Bill. It has been stated time and again that this Bill has been drafted to address criminal violence and illegal firearms. Yet, Mr George has also argued that the Bill focuses on legal firearms because it is, and I quote ``impossible to make laws for criminals’’. However, followed to its logical conclusion, this argument would have us believe that there is no reason to draft laws at all, other than to regulate those who choose to obey them. The object of laws should be to bring criminals under control and not to exclude them and overregulate law-abiding citizens. [Interjections.]
This Bill will not be affordable or implementable. The R1 billion, over four years, that has been set aside to cover the costs of its implementation does not begin to cover the hidden costs of this Bill. The conservative estimate is that the Central Firearms Register will have to handle about 150 000 licensing and competency certificates every month. It is currently managing about 9 000 a month, with a backlog of about 35 000. Even assuming that the current budget of R1 billion over four years is accurate, such resources could provide more than 8 000 new police officers to patrol our streets and to tackle crime at the frontlines.
It is an indisputable fact that a person armed with a firearm - I have listened in amazement to Mr George this afternoon - has a much higher chance of surviving an attack than an unarmed person. This amounts to 250% in the case of women in circumstances of rape. In our country, this is not simply a nice-to-know statistic, it is a daily truth and fact. In some of our provinces, there is only one police officer for every 240 km - only one police officer. There is only one patrol vehicle for every 1 141 km. I have listened to Mr George this afternoon. I say to him that, everyday in our country, more than 60 people are being murdered and killed. More than 130 women are being raped, on average, everyday in our country. And he says that legal firearms do not contribute to self-defence! This Bill illustrates the alarming trend in that Parliament is more and more being sidelined and that the Cabinet continues to seize responsibilities and powers that rightly rest in this House. We were all encouraged when the ANC members who are in this committee agreed with us, the opposition, that the Minister should not have the sole power to outlaw certain types of firearms without first getting the approval of this House. But, at the very last minute, the ANC members of the committee caved in to Cabinet pressure and sold out the power of Parliament. This is another example of how we are moving away from parliamentary law-making towards laws made by a select few in the Cabinet, the executive, who are not accountable to the people in this country.
The DP, the New NP and the FA - the Democratic Alliance - will not and cannot support such a Bill. It is time for the ANC Government to stop attacking the easy targets such as legal firearm owners and to start to deal with the root causes of crime and violence. What we really needed was a Bill that addressed the issue of illegal firearms, which amount to more than 2,5 million at this very moment in our country.
This Bill will not take a single illegal firearm out of the hands of one criminal. This Bill will continue to tip the balance in favour of criminals and against law-abiding citizens. [Applause.]
Mr A J BOTHA: Madam Speaker, members of the House, hon Minister, it is of utmost importance that it is clear in the minds of all that the DP supports the principle of fair, sound and logical gun control - control that is capable of being implemented. In fact, we have never been against it. What we are implacably against is government by stealth, as practised by the ANC, and their attempts at misleading Parliament and the public.
Starting with the dubious origin of this Bill, which led to the pantomime of the Minister denying, in this House, the very existence of the draft, and right through the process, the ANC played games with a large number of people who were serious about getting the best possible Bill before Parliament. As late as Tuesday, this week, the ANC once again sprung surprises on the committee by voting against excellent amendments that had been unanimously accepted in the committee during the formal debate. The ANC has tended to favour foreign sectarian advice whilst spurning excellent domestic contributions. In this, they have struck at the very heart of established traditions and value systems within South Africa. [Interjections.]
AN HON MEMBER: Whose values?
Mr A J BOTHA: That hon member will hear in a moment if he listens. Let there be no doubt in the minds of anyone what these traditions and value systems are and were. From time immemorial, and in every culture that comprises this wonderfully diverse society of ours, weapons were utilised to hunt and guard against danger. Hunting is still very important as it attracts considerable direct investment in the otherwise economically depressed rural areas and it plays a significant role in the tourism industry.
Anybody who claims that the citizens of this country are not exposed to danger at present is, indeed, living on a different planet from the rest of us. The members of our society most exposed to violent aggression are the very poor, who live in shacks that afford little physical protection against violent criminals and people living on isolated farms.
These categories of people are at least four times as exposed to violence and murder as the average South African, but seventy times more exposed than members of this House. Those people need means of self-defence as much as, if not more than, our forebears did. Under these circumstances, it is shameful that this Bill requires them to prove their need for firearms to a Government that has failed dismally to offer them the most basic protection against rampant criminality.
There are elements in this Bill which should horrify any democrat, including democrats in the ANC, if they still exist there. From Chapters 2 through to 10, it was accepted, also by the ANC, that the Minister required prior approval from Parliament in the exercise of certain powers. At the last minute, the ANC did an about-face and shamefully voted down the oversight role of Parliament, thereby granting the Minister legislative powers.
Chapter 15 deals with presumptions. In section 120, there is a presumption of guilt where the onus is placed on the citizen to prove that reasonable steps were taken to prevent others from contravening sections of this Bill. Presumptions do not belong in a sound legal system, and certainly not in our country, where police tend to arrest suspects before completing their investigations, rather than later. This can easily lead to innocents being arrested and incarcerated with hardened criminals, with all the concomitant horrors and dangers involved. In addition, it is very likely that this section will not survive constitutional scrutiny, regardless of whatever the Minister had to say about this here today.
Worse was however to come in Chapter 16, which deals with offences and penalties. After playing musical chairs with regard to parts of the Bill, the ANC shockingly voted in, again at the last minute, an amendment that contained a fiction of what should be, and not what is. Fictionalising reality appears to be their favourite ploy. This section then read:
Any person who is aware or who ought reasonably to be aware of … is guilty of an offence.
In other words, members of this party, which constantly claims to be for our people, were quite happy to enact legislation that would punish these very people for actions that never took place. It is clear that this absurdity was finally hammered home to them yesterday, possibly by a threatening Johnny de Lange, which then led them to approach the opposition with a supposed compromise, so that the original amendment could now again be in the Bill. This is no compromise. They were made aware of the grossness of their error, one does not know how, and now they are trying to scuttle out of a corner of their own making. Thankful, as one is that this improvement is included, one is abhorred by the spectacle of another last-gasp change printed in today’s Order Paper so that Parliament can proceed with its work.
Lastly, I would like to draw attention to Chapter 19 where provision is made for the Government to rob law-abiding citizens. In this chapter, provision is made for the Minister to compensate gun owners, not necessarily at the actual market value of the item, but instead at such a price as he and the Minister of Finance decide that they can afford.
Let me, in conclusion, restate the DP’s support for the control of legally- owned firearms and our recognition of the need to improve the existing legislation. This cumbersome, onerous and dangerous Bill of the ANC does not qualify on either count, and the DP will therefore vote against it. [Applause.]
Mr Q J KGAUWE: Madam Speaker, there are a large number of firearms, both legal and illegal, in the hands of South Africans, especially the youth. The number of incidents of robberies, murder and domestic violence in which firearms are used is high.
The current system is not adequate, and it has to be improved. We must tighten the control of possession of firearms. We are saying that for an applicant to qualify for a possession of a firearm, he or she should be 21 years of age. One may acquire a firearm for self-defence purposes, but only one licence per individual should be issued.
We have a new mechanism that we are going to apply. We recommend the provision of issuing competency certificates with regular renewals of licences, and particularly welcome the inclusion of this requirement before an application for a licence can be considered.
Re lemogile gore batho, go akaretsa bagolo, ba le bantsi ba tlhoka boikarabelo. Ga ba fitlhe dithunya tsa bona mo go sireletsegileng teng. Fa mogolo a beile sethunya fa tlase ga mosamo, ngwana a ka se tsaya mme a bolaya motho ka sona. Setifikeiti sa bokgoni se a re fa o le botlhaswa, o palelwa ke go šuba sethunya kowa go sireletsegileng teng gonne o sena seifi, ga nkitla o fiwa sethunya mo isagong. Se ke nngwe ya ditlhagiso tse di leng teng. Fa o paletswe go falola setifikeiti sa bokgoni se se nang ditshwanelo tse di rileng, ga o ne o bona sethunya.
Re letleletse masole, mapodisa le bao ba leng kwa dikgolegelong, gore ba seka ba amiwa ke diteko tsa setifikeiti sa bokgoni, ka gonne masole ka nako ya tiro a tshwanetse go dirisa dithunya. Le gale fa lepodisa le tswa ka jarata, le tshwanetse gore le nne le setifikeiti sa bokgoni, ka gonne le tla be le dirisa sethunya se e leng sa gagwe. Ga re le thibele gore le tseye teko ya bokgoni.
E ke tsela e mokgatlo wa ANC o bonang dilo ka yona. Re na le bothata. Mapodisa a mantsi a bolaya masika a bona. Ga a kgone go tshwara maikutlo a bona fa ba setse ba le mo maemong a a rileng. Ke ka foo re lopang gore fa lepodisa le se mo tirong, le tshwanetse go tsaya teko ya setifikelti sa bokgoni. Jaanong ke batla go umaka ditiragalo tse di diragetseng. (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[Mr Q J KGAUWE: We have noted that many people, including adults, are irresponsible. They do not put their guns in safe places. If an adult hides a gun under a pillow, a child is likely to find that gun and use it to kill somebody. The competency certificate states that if one is irresponsible and unable to provide a safe for one’s gun, one will not be allowed to own a gun in future. This is one of the provisions that appears in this certifcate. If one fails this test then one will not be allowed to own a gun.
We have exempted soldiers, police officers and prison warders from these laws, because in times of war soldiers are supposed to carry guns. But when a policeman or woman leaves the premises of a police station, he or she should have a competency certificate because he or she will be using his or her own gun. We are not preventing police officers from taking this test.
This is the way the ANC is dealing with these issues. We are faced with a problem. Many police officers who are unable to control their tempers when they are under stress, kill their families. That is why police officers are required to take a competency test for when they are not on duty.
I now want to quote a few incidents that have taken place.]
Comrade Bheki Mkhize, … a member of this House, was cold-bloodedly killed for no apparent reason. Yet the perpetrators are earning salaries at this stage. An irresponsible police officer decided to kill him.
Maloba Eugene Terre’Blanche o beditse motho a be a mo gobatsa. Motho o jaanong ga a kgone go tsamaya le go itirela. Molaon was setifikeiti sa bokgoni wa re motho yoo tshwanang le Eugene Terre’Blanche ga a ne a bona sethunya, ka gonne ka sejatlhapi ba re … (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)
[The other day Eugène Terre’Blanche attacked and injured a person. Today this person cannot move or work. The competency certificate clearly states that a person such as Eugène Terre’Blanche is not fit to own a gun because …]
… he is inclined to violence. Motho yo o jalo ga a tshwanela go bona sethunya.
Maloba rrakgwebo mongwe kwa Tshwane o tshetse ngwana ka mahura a koloi. Motho yo jalo ga a tshwanela go bona sethunya ka gonne … (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)
[Such a person is also not fit to own a gun. The other day a businessman in Pretoria poured petrol over a child. Such a person is also not fit to own a gun because …]
… he is inclined to violence. He is also incompetent.
Ke ka moo re tlhomang melao e e tla thusang rona rotlhe le batho ka kakaretso. Ka bomadimabe Philip Powell wa IFP o ne, mo nakong e e fetileng, a tsaya dithunya tsa mmuso, mme a re ke tsa gagwe. Motho yoo, go ya ka molao o montšha, ga a tshwanela go nna le sethunya, ka gonne ga a tshepagale. A a dule fela jalo a sena sethunya.
Fa re sekaseka mabaka ao otlhe, o tla lemoga gore re leka gore batho ba nne le maikarabelo fa ba tshotse dithunya mo go bona. Jaanong se se nkemisang tlhogo ke gore re lemoga gore kwa dikolong motho o kgona go tsena ka sethunya, mme a thunye morutabana, ka gonne ba ngangisana ka mosadi. Ka jalo re re a teko ya setifikeiti sa bokgoni e tle. Seo se tla re kgontsa go fokotsa palo ya dinokwane. Sethunya se tshwanetse go fiwa motho yo o nang le maikarabelo. Ga re a ikemisetsa go tlogela dithunya di tsha meka mo pepeneneng.
Batho ba bangwe ba ba buileng mo, jaaka ba New NP le DP, ba re re file ditona maatla. Re dumelana le bona. Fa Tona e bona sethunya fale, ga re batle gore a palelwe ke go se tsaya. Re mo fa maatla a go se tsaya. A seke a tla mo Palamenteng pele, ka gonne fa a dira jalo, sethunya sona se ka nne sa sala se timela. O tshwanetse go tsaya sethunya seo, mme a re bolelle morago. [Legofi.]
Fa ke boela kwa dikolong, re batla gore Tona adirise melao e re mo fileng yona. A seke a tlhola a re botsa gore a dire eng. A re bolele gore dikolo tse di rileng mo Aforika Borwa di se dumelele dithunya mo mabaleng a tsona. Go na le barutabana le bana ba ba yang kula sekolong ka dithunya. Fa re tlogela kgang e gore e rarabololwe ke balaodi ba sekolo, Ha bo re sa dire molao. Balaodi ba bangwe ba dikolo ga ba na tlhaloganyo, mme ba tla gana. [Go tsenaganong.] Ka jalo re batla Tona gore e nne le maatla a go thibela dilo di tshwana le tseo. Maloba re etetse Firearm Registry kwa Tshwane. Makoko a kganetso a a makatsa. Batho ba kwa Firearm Registry ba rile ba tla kgona gore ba fe batho dithunya. Ba re bontshintse mokgwa o ba dirisang dithunya ka ona. Bomadimabe ke gore laesense ya sethunya ke R50. Motho o tsena fela kwa lebenkeleng, mme a reke sethunya ka R200. Morago o duela R50 ya lae sense, e be le gore o duetse R250 go bona sethunya se a yang go bolaya motha ka sona. Se ga se boikarabelo, mme gape ga re itse gore a motho yoo o kgona go dirisa sethunya seo. Mme ka gonne a se rata, o se rekile.
Batho ba kwa Firearm Registry ba re boleletse gore ka nako ele ya tlhaolele go ne go na le mokomisenara yo o rileng. Makgowa a ne a tla go ikwadisa, mme morago a fiwe dilaesense. Jaanong ga re itse gore makgowa a a filweng dilaelisense a kgona go le kae, ka gonne ka nako eo go ne go sa dirisiwe dikomputara. Motho o ne a kwadisiwa fela a be a atswa a tsamaya. Ke bomadimabe gore kah nako e, ra bo re tshwanetse go lebelela gore ke mang yo o nang le sethunya se se mo molaong, maikaelelo a motho ke eng me ke mang yo o tla dirisang sethunya seo sentle. Ka tsela eo re leka go thibela dithunya tse diseng mo molaong. [Nako e fedile.] [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)
[We are setting up these laws to help all people. Unfortunately Philip Powell of the IFP took state arms and claimed that they were his own. This person, according to the new law, should not own a gun because he is not trustworthy. Let him remain without a gun.
When one looks at all these issues one will realise that we want people to be responsible when they carry guns with them. What astounds me is the fact that a student goes to school and shoots a teacher dead because they may have been quarrelling over a woman. We welcome the competency test. It will help reduce the number of criminals. A gun should be given to a responsible person. We should not allow guns to be used carelessly.
People from the New NP and the DP claim that we have given powers to the Minister. We agree with them. If the hon the Minister sees a gun somewhere, he should not encounter difficulties when he wants to confiscate that gun. We are giving him the power to confiscate that gun. He should not first have to come to Parliament to be empowered because by the time he does that, the gun will have disappeared. He should confiscate that gun and inform us later. [Applause.]
Going back to schools we want the hon the Minister to use the powers that we have given him. He should not ask us what he should do. He should tell us that schools should not allow guns on their premises.There are students and teachers who go to school with guns. If we leave this matter to the school governing bodies we will be failing in our duty. Some members of these governing bodies are irresponsible and I know that they will refuse. We are empowering the hon the Minister to enable him to deal with matters such as these. [Interjections.] These opposition parties are amazing.
The other day we visited the Firearms Registry in Pretoria. The staff at the Firearms Registry said they would be able to provide people with firearms. They showed us the way they use guns. An unfortunate part is that a firearm licence costs R50. Any person can just go into a shop and buy a gun for R200. After that he or she pays the R50 licence fee and all this amounts to R250. He then uses this gun to kill a person. This is irresponsible because we do not know if this person can use this gun. But because he loves the gun he buys it. Staff at the Firearms Registry told us that during the apartheid years there was a certain commissioner who used to issue licences to white people. White people came and registered and were later given licences. We do not know how many white people benefitted from this because in those days there were no computers. A person just registered and left. It is unfortunate that at this time we should be looking at who has a legitimate gun, what this person’s intentions are and who is using his or her gun responsibly. In this manner we are trying to prevent the proliferation of illegal guns. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]
Ms A VAN WYK: Since the very first firearm entered South Africa, South Africans adopted a culture of firearm violence in order to deal with their differences. It was through the barrel of a gun that a policy of oppression was kept intact and that the minority determined the living conditions of the majority.
It is no coincidence that an end to that oppression was not achieved through the barrel of a gun, but was arrived at by sitting together freely and negotiating a democratic dispensation.
The adoption of this Bill today has the potential to lead South Africa away from seeking solutions through violent means and embark upon finding solutions through conflict resolution. The Minister of Education, we believe, can contribute to achieving this by creating for learners the opportunity to acquire conflict resolution skills.
The proliferation of firearms, especially small arms, has become a growing problem in South Africa. In order to address this problem decisively and with lasting impact, it necessitated that the new policy regarding firearms control be developed and that a new Bill supporting this policy be drafted. The current Act is more than 30 years old. It was drafted under the previous dispensation and under the old constitution. It no longer caters for the changing society that we live in.
I hoped that I did not have to say this, but opposition to the Bill reflects a racial prejudice founded on the belief that the majority Government cannot be trusted with the control of firearms. [Applause.] [Interjections.]
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: That is nonsense.
Ms A VAN WYK: That is the truth, Boy. The new Bill provides a legal framework within which it will be possible for responsible citizens to legally possess a firearm. Anything that takes place outside this framework will be illegal and, thus, empowers the SAPS with the necessary tools to address the problem of illegal firearms in a more effective manner. The new Bill does not disarm legal firearm owners, nor does it detract from the right of responsible and law-abiding citizens to own a legal firearm.
I want to repeat this: Despite propaganda to the contrary, the Firearms Control Bill does not disarm legal firearms owners. Yes, it aims to reduce the proliferation of small arms in South Africa. Through theft and negligence, legal firearms find their way into the hands of criminals. We cannot deny this.
This Bill provides the Government and all political parties with the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to improving the plight of women and children. The Bill goes a long way to protecting women and children against perpetrators of violence. In many ways, it makes it impossible for such a perpetrator to own a firearm. However, the most serious oversight in the Bill is the absence of a mechanism to deal with final protection orders. As the Bill reads now, it states that if a person who served with a final protection order applies for a licence, the registrar may declare such a person unfit to possess a firearm. It is, thus, left to the discretion of the registrar to determine whether a final protection order would disqualify an individual from possessing a firearm.
Furthermore, if a person is already in possession of a firearm, it will not be removed from that person after a final protection order is served. This state of affairs is completely unacceptable. It means that we will have to wait for such a person to contravene the order or, in fact, physically harm or kill their partner before we will act. Through this huge loophole, we are actually weakening one of the very basic pillars of the Bill.
The fit and proper test is a tool to identify high-risk individuals who should not own a firearm. The courts do not grant a final protection order lightly. A person with such an order against him or her has clearly displayed signs of being unfit to possess a firearm. This debate again raises the reality that little understanding of the seriousness of domestic violence exists. We were even told that, surely if a person emotionally abuses their partner, it does not justify them being declared unfit to posses a weapon.
The UDM will continue, also through the NCOP, to remedy this situation. We welcome the renewal of licences for firearms and their owners. The current discrepency at the Central Firearms Register is precisely because of firearms lost, stolen or change of ownership without the register being informed.
We do not share the pessimism insofar as this process is concerned. More than four million vehicles are relicenced every year and, in addition, the registration of more than one million new and used vehicles takes place per annum. We urge the SAPS and the Minister to consider outsourcing this administrative process to local government. Not only are they already successfully dealing with vehicle licensing and their registration, but furthermore, it can provide the already cash-strapped local government structures with much-needed income.
As the UDM committed itself in its 1999 elections manifesto to work actively to stop the proliferation of small arms, we support this Bill. [Applause.] Rev K R J MESHOE: Chairperson and the hon the Minister, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of firearm-related crimes in South Africa are committed with illegal firearms. The Firearms Control Bill will neither reduce crime nor disarm owners of illegal firearms, but it will succeed in disempowering law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves.
The preamble of the Bill states that …
the increased availability of firearms has contributed significantly to the high levels of vident crime in our country.
This statement is misleading because it is the increased abuse of illegal firearms and not the availability of legal firearms that is a problem.
Government must remove illegal firearms from society and punish those that have them. They should strive to have a violence-free and not a gun-free South Africa, and also enforce strict rules and guidelines pertaining to the proper storage of firearms.
We find Sections 96(3) that states that:
``A member of a military force of another country visiting South Africa in terms of an agreement between that country and South Africa is exempted from the provisions of this Act
both ridiculous and suspicious. How is it possible that foreign soldiers should be granted a right that citizens are being denied in their own country?
The ACDP rejects Chapter 15 on presumption or possession of firearms or ammunition on the grounds that it does not protect owners of properties who may be set up by criminals. Many residential premises are left unguarded during the day when both parents are at work and children are at school. If someone comes onto those premises in their absence and hides or buries firearms or ammunition on that land, then makes a claim later that there are firearms on that land, how will the owners of those premises prove their innocence when the Bill presumes them guilty until proven innocent? We find this both unconstitutional and unfair. It would be unfair to victims of this kind of abuse. It is equally unacceptable to give the Minister of Safety and Security the power to declare places such as schools and churches as firearm-free zones when he cannot guarantee their safety. If he can guarantee their safety, we will be happy.
Surveys on criminals show that they unanimously prefer unarmed victims and that they are more afraid of an armed victim than they are of the police. If the Government really wanted to prevent criminals from having guns and ammunition … [Time expired.]
Genl C L VILJOEN: Mnr die Voorsitter en agb Minister, dit is moeilik on ‘n gepaste bydrae in twee minute te maak. Die VF stem teen die wetsontwerp.
Dit is weliswaar nie meer vir my nodig om die land te verlaat nie. Dié wapens van my waaraan ek waarde heg, hoef ek nie meer aan my eertydse vyand oor te gee nie. Daar is egter ‘n paar stommiteite in die wetsontwerp wat met meerderheidskoppigheid deurgedruk is en wat die wettige houers van lisensies sal oorlewer aan die genadeloosheid van skurke.
Dit is ‘n stommiteit om wettige wapenbesit te bemoeilik in ‘n misdaadgeteisterde land. My dank gaan aan die komitee omdat hulle geluister het na my voorstel dat effektiewe hantering ook ‘n voorvereiste moet wees vir die bevoegdheid om ‘n lisensie te besit. My hoop is dat meer moordenaars só in die stof sal byt.
Dit is ‘n stommiteit om te weier dat outomatiese wapens in sekere omstandighede vir selfbeskerming toelaatbaar is. Soos die bloed van ‘n adjunkpolisiekommissaris wat onlangs met outomatiese gewere van misdadigers gedood is aan ANC-hande kleef, so sal menige slagoffer graf toe gaan, afgemaai deur outomatiese gewere, met slegs ‘n powere pistooltjie wat die ANC hom toelaat om teen outomatiese gewere mee te veg. Wat ‘n stommiteit!
Dit is ‘n stommiteit om net een wapen vir selfverdediging toe te laat en glad nie eens semi-outomatiese haelgewere daarvoor nie. Menige boervrou sal nog sterf met een pistooltjie in die hand onder die koeëlreën van outomatiese AK 47-gewere wat hierdie ANC die land ingebring het. Is die ANC aan die kant van misdadigers? Hoe anders verklaar ‘n mens dit dan dat hierdie wetsontwerp hulle bevoordeel?
Dit is ‘n stommiteit om ‘n duur beheerstelsel vir wetsgehoorsames in werking te stel terwyl almal weet die probleem is onwettige wapenbesit. Dit is ‘n stommiteit om oorregulasie te hê waar die probleem die kleinste is. Dit mors kosbare geld van die publiek op ‘n versteekte doelwit van geleidelike ontwapening.
Dit is ‘n stommiteit dat die Minister die mag kry om wapenbesit verbode te verklaar. Dit is nie demokrasie nie. Dit is magsbeheptheid. Onder hierdie omstandighede kan die VF, ondanks verbeterings aan die wetgewing, nie daarvoor stem nie. Ons stem daarteen. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Gen C L VILJOEN: Mr Chairperson and hon Minister, it is difficult to make an appropriate contribution in two minutes. The FF is voting against the Bill.
It is true that it is no longer necessary for me to leave the country. Those weapons to which I attach value, I no longer have to surrender to my one-time enemy. However, there are a few ludicrous aspects in the Bill which were pushed through by way of stubbornness on the part of the majority and which are going to surrender the legal licence holders to the mercilessness of criminals.
It is ludicrous to make legal possession of arms difficult in a crime- ridden country. My thanks go to the committee because they listened to my proposal that effective handling should also be a prerequisite for the ability to own a licence. My hope is that in this way more murderers will bite the dust.
It is ludicrous not to allow automatic weapons for self-protection under certain circumstances. In the same way that ANC hands are stained with the blood of the deputy police commissioner who was recently killed with automatic weapons belonging to criminals, many victims will go to the grave, mown down by automatic weapons, with only a miserable pistol with which the ANC allows them to fight against automatic weapons. How ludicrous!
It is ludicrous only to allow one weapon for self-protection, and not even to allow semi-automatic shotguns for this purpose. Many farmers’ wives will still die with one small pistol in their hand under a hail of bullets from automatic AK-47 weapons which this ANC brought into the country. Is the ANC on the side of criminals? How else does one explain the fact that this Bill benefits them?
It is ludicrous to implement an expensive control system for law-abiding citizens, while everybody knows the problem is illegal arms possession. It is ludicrous to have overregulation where the problem is smallest. This wastes valuable public money on a hidden agenda of gradual disarmament.
It is ludicrous that the Minister has the power to declare the possession of arms forbidden. This is not democracy. This is power-craziness. Under these circumstances the FF cannot vote for the legislation, despite improvements to it. We vote against it.]
Miss J E SOSIBO: Mr Chairperson, I rise to support this Bill. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. This is how it is in Japan and many other countries, and so should it be in our country.
I wish to focus on Japan because of its low crime rate which has attracted the attention of numerous foreign scholars. While virtually all outside observers acknowledge that gun control prevents crime, opinions are divided over whether the Japanese example can serve as a model for other countries. It may be exaggeration to say that guns in Japan have been regulated into nonexistence, but not by much.
Would-be gun owners in Japan must prove that they can be trusted with lethal weapons. The law permits adults to possess any number of shotguns and rifles, but the conditions under which they can do so are exacting and the relevant legislation is scrupulously enforced. One can own a gun and shoot at regulated times and places. However, if there is an accident or if, as a result of careless storage, the gun is stolen and used to commit a crime, the owner faces penalties almost as severe as those the criminal is faced with.
Our country has one of the highest firearms-related death rates, an average of 31 people a day according to 1998 data. According to a report of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice of 1997, South Africa also has the highest number of law enforcement officers. However, they are murdered on a daily basis by criminal seeking ownership of illegal firearms.
A report to the National Assembly by the Department of Safety and Security in 1998 stated that a total of 29 694 firearms were reported stolen from the legal owners during that year at an average of 2 000 guns a month. Of this number, only 1 764 were recovered in the same year, with the rest falling into criminals’ hands. On the other hand, the number of firearms in circulation is increasing annually with the Central Firearms Register receiving about 18 000 to 20 000 new applications.
Various parts of the Bill address the many concerns around innocent and defenceless women, children and disabled people who are terrorised on a daily basis by gun-touting criminals in possession of legal or illegal firearms. The increasing tendency by spouses, particularly husbands, to resort to family murders when faced with domestic or finance-related problems has to be curbed in order to prevent unnecessary loss of life. The Firearms Control Bill seeks to protect innocent women, children and the disabled from dominant and bullying husbands during domestic disputes. So, the Bill must be hailed as a victory for vulnerable women and children.
There has been a well-ochestrated propaganda campaign to portray the introduction of the Firearms Control Bill and the whole debate about measures to reduce firearms with racial overtones. Some members of this House, such as the hon Gen Viljoen, who claims to be speaking on behalf of White African farmers, have gone to great lengths to lobby support against this Bill by insisting that it is another attempt to disarm White farmers of their only source of protection against criminals. Let us look at the facts.
During the last quarter of 1997, for example, attacks on farmers took place almost on a daily basis. Most farmers who were being attacked had their own weapons stolen. Farmers are usually in possession of a large number of firearms which attract thefts, and this actually serves as an additional incentive for attacks.
A report was released by Nedcor and the Institute For Security Studies, volume 3 of 1999, which looked at the crime index. A statistical profile was compiled of farm attackers - young men, usually in gangs of six, and their main demands were for guns and cash.
In the Aida Parker Newsletter released in spring in 1998, it is stated that, during the attacks on farmers between January and August 1998, firearms were stolen in 27% of reported cases. In 1997, 66,1% of attacks on farms and smallholdings were committed with firearms. Farmers are isolated and vulnerable to attacks where the police are not able to defend them. They, more than anyone else, should be seen as a special category of people owning weapons for self-defence, but they are targets because of their guns.
By being isolated, farmers become targets for attacks and, in response, they further arm themselves, thus adding to their arsenal. We have listened to the farmers’ concerns about this Bill, and they thanked us for the way in which this legislation has accommodated their concerns.
It is evident that the hon Gen Viljoen is not talking on behalf of farmers …
Mr T M GONIWE: He is speaking for himself.
Miss J E SOSIBO: … In fact, he is not talking on behalf of anyone. He is talking on behalf of himself, to himself.
With regard to the hon Tony Leon, who is making politics out of something that everyone everywhere supports, and with regard to the desperate alliance that opposes transformatory legislation for the sake of opposing it, I would like to say that they do not want to see a change in the social relations of society but rather a perpetuation of the past. It is the same old bunch, with the same old prejudices.
While the murder rate in South Africa has decreased between 1994 and 1998, the number of people killed by guns has steadily increased. In 1994, guns accounted for 41% of murders. In 1998, it increased to 49%. This Bill seeks to tighten control over the possession of firearms to prevent them from becoming illegal firearms, and it gives more powers to the SA Police Service to combat the proliferation of firearms. It promotes a nonviolent and peaceful society, and is a victory for all peace-loving South Africans.
Ake ngilungise kancane nje lapho icishe yaphuma khona kumlingani wami, uGatsheni.
Izindawo ezinjengamasonto, izikole, amabhange kanye nalo iPhalamende leli, saxoxa ngazo kakhulu ngokuthi uNgqongqoshe angabonana nabaphethe lapho; kodwa hhayi ukuthi kudingeka athole imvume kubona ngoba uma kungukuthi uzocela imvume kubona, kukhona izindawo lapho angeke aze ayithole imvume khona. Savumelana-ke ngokuthi uNggongqoshe nguyena oyogunyaza. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.)
[Let me make a minor correction of what Gatsheni has just said. We talked a lot about the fact that the hon the Minister should meet with people who run institutions like churches, schools, banks and even this Parliament. It’s not that he should get a permission from them. There are institutions that will not give him that permission. We agreed that the hon the Minister is the one who will authorise it. [Applause.]]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Mr Chairperson, South Africa ranks high in the world in terms of crimes committed through the use of firearms. The situation is exacerbated by the easy access to and the availability of firearms. Perhaps we may take a lesson from what Rev Martin Luther King Junior said:
By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim, we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.
A responsible government cannot and should not sit back and stare as people are mowed down by irresponsible louts.
The past government may have had cause to issue firearm licenses indiscriminately to some people. In the same way, it is no unreasonable that the current Government has cause to ensure that it regulates the possession of firearms. The nation is no longer perceived to be at war. All that remains is to strive to educate those trigger-happy lunatics on our streets.
The Bill does not purport to disarm law-abiding citizens but intends to ensure that the ownership of guns is brought under control. There is nothing wrong in laying down that the firearm owner must be competent in that regard. After all, there is nothing wrong in laying down that a motor vehicle driver has to be competent to drive. [Interjections.] Drivers; licenses are renewed after some time. Why cannot firearms licenses be renewed and reviewed regularly?
In 1986, just before Robert F Kennedy was killed, he had this to say:
With all the violence, murder and killings we have had, I think you will agree with me that we must keep firearms from people who have no business with guns.
Many people in South Africa have died as a result of guns kept and used unlawfully by rogues. Some perpetrators are invariably connected to certain organisations or juristic persons. Why cannot such organisations expose them for what they are worth? We appeal to civil society to do its utmost to rid itself of the stalk borers in their midst. Juristic bodies and Government should not live in the proverbial mode of the dark spot underneath the candle, radiating light far away, yet having problems around them. [Time Expired.]
Hon MEMBER: Uthethe kakuhle Mfundisi [You have spoken well, Mfundisi]. [Laughter.]
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairperson, allow me to react briefly to some of the remarks made by the previous speakers. The hon member, Mr George, said that this Bill will definitely bring down the levels of violent crime in South Africa. It will not. Why not? Because it does not target criminals, it targets law-abiding citizens. [Interjections.] Mr George said that this Bill will simplify the task of the SAPS. It will not. This Bill is far more complicated than the present Act. This Bill creates 180 new offences. It is a labyrinth of administrative red tape, and if the SAPS cannot currently enforce the present Act, there is no way on earth that they will be able to enforce this Bill.
The hon member from the UDM, Annelize Van Wyk, said that opposition to the Bill had a racial undertone. [Interjections.] The opposite is true. [Interjections.] Now that the bulk of new applications for firearms comes from the black community, all of a sudden there is a need for overregulation of gun ownership. [Interjections.] Better late than never!
The New NP and the DP welcomes the amendment printed in the Order Paper today. We have constantly tried to persuade the ANC component that one cannot report something that one ought to have been aware of. But our pleas fell on deaf ears. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and they acknowledged this. But it is a pity that good sense did not prevail regarding the other clauses of the Bill as well.
Despite his partiality, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security, Mr Mluleki George, conducted the deliberations in an excellent manner. [Interjections.] The legal teams were extremely helpful, but, unfortunately ``Theirs was not to reason why, theirs was but to do or die.’’
Yes, the New NP and the DP are wholeheartedly committed to the promotion of responsible gun ownership in South Africa. [Interjections.]
Hon MEMBERS: Support the Bill!
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Yes, the New NP and the DP are convinced that only fit and proper persons should be allowed to own firearms. [Interjections.] Yes, the New NP and DP firmly believes that those who abuse firearms for criminal purposes should be severely punished.[Interjections.] But the New NP and the DP will not support this Bill and the main reason why we will vote against this Bill is because the fundamentals underpinning this Bill are totally flawed. The mere availability of firearms is not a contributor to violent crime in South Africa. [Interjections.]
Someone once said: ``It is not necessarily the tyres, lights or brakes that are the most dangerous part of a car. It is usually the nut that holds the steering wheel.’’ [Interjections.] The problem is not the gun, it is the nut that holds the gun. Guns do not necessarily kill people. People kill people. [Interjections.] If we want to address violent crime in South Africa, overregulation of law-abiding gun owners is not the answer. We will have to change the hearts and minds of our people and especially our young people. [Interjections.]
Mrs B M NTULI: Change yours!
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Conflict resolution is a long-overdue compulsory school subject. We should take cognisance of what the ANC said in 1993 in this regard. I am going to quote the ANC:
Without an improvement of the socioeconomic and other factors giving rise to criminogenic conditions in South Africa, there is only a slight prospect that the unlawful use of firearms can be substantially curtailed.
I cannot agree more with the ANC on this point. The emphasis in fighting crime should shift from the present preoccupation with firearms control to a more holistic approach which focuses on the moral and socioeconomic roots of criminality. [Interjections.]
Unfortunately, the ANC abandoned this very sensible position they took in
- [Interjections.] Another presumption underpinning this Bill, and previous speakers referred to it, is that a significant proportion of violent crime is committed with licensed firearms. Wrong! It should be remembered that Mr Mufamadi was the previous Minister of Safety and Security. Now, he said that licenced firearms were only responsible for 0,5% of violent crime, and he said it in this Parliament. Now, I believe Mr Mufamadi and I am convinced that he would not have misled this House.
Violent crime is primarily committed with illegal firearms, of which more than 4 million were brought into the country during the years of the struggle. The central focus of control measures should therefore be the reduction of the number of firearms in the hands of criminals. I ask the hon the Minister to target criminals and not law-abiding citizens. This Bill fails to do that.
During our discussions, I detected a real fear amongst my ANC colleagues that some people might be stockpiling weapons to overthrow the Government. I want to put my ANC colleagues at ease. [Interjections.] I do not know of a single legal gun owner with this objective in mind. Legal gun owners are mostly law-abiding, upstanding citizens with respect for democracy. The Government is, in any case, busy overthrowing itself through its position on Zimbabwe and Aids. [Applause.]
Ek wil die Nuwe NP en die DP se teleurstelling boekstaaf oor die wyse waarop die ANC hulle woord gebreek het oor ‘n ooreengekome amendement. Daar is ooreengekom dat die Minister enige vuurwapen slegs verbode sal kan verklaar ná goedkeuring deur die Parlement. En toe, uit die bloute, is daar weer teruggekeer na die eerste posisie, en nou kan die Minister die hele land ontwapen by wyse van ‘n kennisgewing in die Staatskoerant.
Dieselfde het gebeur met die getal wapens vir selfverdediging. Eers is ooreengekom dat dit twee sal wees. En toe skielik uit die bloute is dit weer een.
Met Gun-Free South Africa op die agtergrond het ‘n mens nooit geweet met wie jy onderhandel nie. Dit was ‘n geval van Esau se hande, maar Jakob se stem.
Tydens die bespreking van die wetsontwerp is te kenne gegee dat belanghebbendes geraadpleeg sal word met die opstel van die regulasies. Graag verneem ek by die Minister of dit wel die geval sal wees. Die instelling van ‘n nasionale raadplegende vuurwapenforum wat die Minister van raad bedien oor vuurwapens behoort oorweeg te word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[I want to place on record that the New NP and the DP are disappointed at the way in which the ANC went back on their word with regard to an agreed amendment. It was agreed that the Minister would only be able to prohibit any firearm after approval by Parliament. And then, out of the blue, they reverted to their original position and now the Minister can disarm the entire country through a notice in the Gazette.
The same thing happened as regards the number of weapons for self-defence. It was initially agreed that the number would be two. And then suddenly, out of the blue, it was one again.
With Gun-free South Africa in the background one never knew with whom one was negotiating. It was a question of Esau’s hands, but Jacob’s voice.
During the discussion of the Bill we were told that all interestd parties would be consulted with regard to the drafting of the regulations. I would like to know from the Minister if this will, indeed, be the case. The establishment of a national consultative firearm forum to advise the Minister about firearms, ought to be considered.]
In conclusion, the New NP and the DP want to pay tribute to the firearms fraternity in South Africa. They do not only provide job opportunities for 80 000 people, but they also generate more than R1 billion in income for South Africa annually. So there hon members have the reason.
Die Nuwe NP en die DP stem teen hierdie wetsontwerp. [Applous.] [The New NP and the DP will vote against this Bill. [Applause.]]
Mr R P ZONDO: Chairperson, I want to focus on three chapters of this vital piece of transformation legislation, but then I also want to remind the hon Boy Geldenhuys about the historical background of this whole thing. Its aim is to assist the transformation of our country from the mess of the apartheid Act of the 1970s, written, enacted and enforced by B J Vorster and Jimmy Kruger, and their successors P W Botha and F W de Klerk and the so-called Democratic Alliance. Surely, B J Vorster, and Jimmy Kruger and other late architects of the bad past must be turning in their graves as we are about to vote for this vital Bill.
I will deal with the chapters dealing with search and seizure, presumptions and offences, penalties and administrative fines.
Chapter 14 on search and seizure will ensure that the police are given sufficient powers to search any premises, vehicles, vessels or aircraft, in the course of policing operations such as roadblocks, where they believe there are firearms or ammunition which is held in contravention of the Bill. It also allows the police to take fingerprints and forensic samples from suspects. In the past the police were not allowed to do this and investigations were seriously hampered because this meant that criminals literally got away with murder.
Another important provision of the Bill is the one which allows the police to search premises without a warrant. This provision allows the police to act speedily on information which they have reason to believe will assist in the investigation of a crime. In most cases, the police requires a warrant from a judge or magistrate, but in some critical cases, when time is of the essence, they will now have the ability to act on this information without a warrant. Of course, like any wide powers, this can be misused and that means we must ensure that the use of this provision is properly monitored.
The ANC is very aware of the sensitivity of including the principle of presumption in the Bill. After thinking long and hard, we believe that this is necessary. These presumptions limit the right to silence of a person accused of being in possession of illegal firearms. This limitation is done in accordance with the provisions of section 36 of the Constitution, and it was drafted in terms of the latest decision of our Constitutional Court.
Chapter 16 of the Bill covering offences, penalties and administrative fines, provides the teeth of this legislation. Severe penalties are provided in accordance with the seriousness of firearms-related crimes. A very important feature of this chapter is the introduction of administrative fines imposed by the registrar. This will ensure that certain categories of culprits will pay the price for their transgressions without acquiring a criminal record, while at the same time alleviating the burden on our courts.
It is also important to note that a duty is placed on everyone to be alert with regard to the existence of illegal firearms and ammunition and to report this to the police, as the Minister has said. In the same way that we should stop buying stolen goods and take away the lifeline of thieves, we must report illegal guns. We are duty-bound as a society committed to fighting crime in our communities. The clause dealing with the reporting of illegal arms provides disincentives for failure to comply. This provision emphasises the importance of community participation in the eradication of crime.
In the build-up to the new South Africa some irresponsible statements by self-proclaimed, ultra-rightwing leaders encouraged certain sectors of the community to arm themselves and to guard themselves against an ANC government. This led to some of their guns being stolen from them, and guns were also taken from the former TBVC states. This contributed to the proliferation of arms in our country.
The hon Boy Geldenhuys said during the public hearing that he had travelled from Randfontein to Mamelodi, where he had been invited to address a workshop and where most members present had raised concerns about the Firearms Control Bill. A follow-up was made in this regard and it was found that this workshop was organised by people who ran kangaroo courts, and who harassed the community with illegal firearms. [Interjections.] Let me put the record straight: The majority of the community, as well as the community police forums of that particular area distance themselves from such groupings. Most of the hon Boy Geldenhuys’ concerns came from those who were involved in criminal activities and are facing criminal charges, as I am saying now.
The hon member also raised a concern regarding infringing on the rights of
people, saying that the Bill is aimed at disarming people. It is against
this background that he is opposed to this Bill. I am afraid that the hon
Geldenhuys of the three blind parties'' cannot find the way out of the
political cul-de-sac they find themselves in now. As we are all aware, on
Monday, 2 October - hon members should listen to this - ten days ago,
Eugene Terre'Blanche appeared on the Morning Live TV programme and said he
was in the process of demilitarising the Afrikaner Weerstandbeweging, this
at a time when the so-called Democratic Alliance has positioned itself to
fight back’’ in favour of the mess of B J Vorster.
We have received huge support from across sections of social formation, from religious bodies and NGOs from all the country. It is clear that sober- thinking South Africans agree with us that there should be gun control, and they are present here today in the gallery to witness the passage of this historic Bill that will go a long way in ensuring that we reduce the number of guns available in society. I do not think that the ANC is asking too much in requesting other parties in this House to support the Bill that aims to promote a better, safer and more peaceful life for all. The fact is: We must support this Bill and peace.
Uma sengibeka kahle, ngamafushane, uMnu Boy Geldenhys ungizwisa ubuhlungu ngoba unezwi elimnandi kodwa lezi zinto zakhe azishoyo zingizwisa ubuhlungu. [To put it briefly and clearly, Mr Boy Geldenhuys causes me pain because he has a pleasant voice, but the things that he says, causes me pain.]
Ga ke tsebe gore monagano wa gagwe ka nako ye o reng ka tiragalo ya malobanyana kua Silverton ya motho yo a ilego a tsena a ihlamile ka dithuthupiši le dibetša. Lehono re bolela e le gore malapa a mantši a dillong ka ge a lahlegetšwe ke meloko. Ka boikokobetšo ke kgopela gore mohlomphegi Boy Geldenhuys a ke a gapeletše monagano wa gagwe go nagana gabotse, gomme a tshediše bao ba lego mahlokong ka baka la dithunya. [Legofsi.] (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)
I do not know what he thinks he is saying at this juncture in regard to the incident that took place recently at Silverton, where a person suddenly entered armed with grenades and ammunication. Today as we speak many families are in mourning because they have lost their relatives. In humility I therefore request that the hon Boy Geldenhuys be forced to reconsiderhis views properly, and he should extend his condolences to those who are in mourning because of firearms. [Applause.]
r S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairman, the Firearms Control Bill was shrouded in controversy and suspicion from the beginning and when public hearings on it drew to a close, tension between the pro-gun lobbyists and advocates of firearms control had not subsided.
The PAC objects to several clauses in this Bill which give the Minister powers which ought to be exercised only by the approval of Parliament. For example, the Minister has the power to declare any weapon unlawful without first getting approval from Parliament. The PAC is concerned about Chapter 15 which deals with presumptions. It shifts the burden of proof to the accused. This is a violation of the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence.
On the whole, the Bill seems to have addressed scores of concerns which were raised regarding firearms control. Chapter 6 comprehensively deals with licences to possess firearms and it, inter alia, includes separate licences in respect of each firearm, additional licences and licences to possess a firearm for self-defence. Chapter 18 deals with the right of appeal to the appeal board by any person whose application for firearms is refused by the registrar.
One of the primary duties of a government is to protect the lives of the people. The PAC is concerned about an issue which has been totally ignored during the discussion on this Bill, that is, political parties whose members use firearms for political thuggery. Thousands of our citizens have been killed through armed political thuggery.
The PAC supports this Bill on the clear understanding that illegal users of guns who murder innocent citizens or advance demo-thuggery in this country will feel the full force of the law without any favour of any kind. Otherwise, it will not be easy to restrain members of political parties who are attacked by armed thugs posing as politicians. [Applause.]
Mr E T FERREIRA: Chairperson, as has already been stated by my colleague, the IFP will support this Bill as it has been improved considerably, compared to the horrendous Bill we started out with. One has to be honest and say that the majority party and the committee chairperson, in particular, have been very fair and accommodative as far as this Bill is concerned. They have moved on a number of issues on which they were originally rigid in order to make way for a Bill that is much more acceptable to most South Africans who have public safety at heart.
The IFP’s experience in dealing with the majority party in recent weeks, regarding this Bill, proves to us yet again that if one wants to talk sense into the devil’s head, one has a better chance of doing that if one is standing next to him than if one is shouting from a distance.
There are still issues in this Bill with which we are not completely comfortable but are prepared to live with. The presumption clauses in Chapter 15 will always remain a thorny issue, and they were undoubtedly unconstitutional in their original form. They have been improved considerably to an extent that a fine balance has been achieved between the state having to prove posession of a firearm and the individual having to supply the court with a reasonable explanation. It still does affect an accused person’s right to remain silent but we believe that the presumptions have more than a reasonable chance to pass the constitutionality test.
The IFP strongly supports the amnesty provisions in clause 140 particularly because, in this final version of the Bill, an amnesty period will only be valid if approved by Parliament. When a member of the IFP handed over an arms cache to the National Director of Public Prosecutions some time ago, we as a party, for the sake of peace and reconciliation, challenged all other organisations and political parties with arms caches to hand them over to the state, but no one did so. We believe that the time has arrived for people and organisations that are still aware of such arms to be prosecuted. It is just too convenient for people to keep quiet about their organisations’ arms caches, just in case they might need them again in future.
‘n Kwessie wat die IVP ook graag anders sou wou sien in die wetgewing is klousule 13 wat handel oor vuurwapens vir selfverdediging. Die oorspronklike weergawe van die wetsontwerp het voorsiening gemaak vir twee vuurwapens vir selfverdediging. Die finale produk maak slegs voorsiening vir een.
Ons stem saam dat die publiek in die oorgrote meerderheid gevalle beslis nie meer as een vuurwapen nodig het nie. Dit is malligheid vir ‘n private persoon wat in ‘n digbewoonde gebied of selfs woonstelblok bly om ‘n haelgeweer vir selfbeskerming te wil hê. Daar kan egter geen twyfel wees nie dat sekere kategorieë sakelui en boere wel ‘n tweede vuurwapen mag nodig hê vir selfverdediging.
Die laaste kwessie waaroor ons maar baie senuweeagtig is, is die verklaring van wapenvrye gebiede. In beginsel klink dit absoluut pragtig en moreel kan ‘n mens nie daarteen gekant wees nie. Ons hoop en vertrou egter dat die regulasies voorsiening sal maak vir intensiewe polisiëring van sulke wapenvrye gebiede, anders gaan hierdie gebiede ‘n ope uitnodiging wees vir kriminele en politieke ekstremiste, en dan sal ons met tragedies opgeskeep sit. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[An issue which the IFP would also like to see reflected differently in the legislation is clause 13 which deals with firearms for self-defence. The original version of the Bill made provision for two firearms for self- defence. The final product only makes provision for one.
We agree that the public, in the overwhelming majority of instances, definitely do not need more than one firearm. It is madness for a private individual living in a densely populated area, or even a block of flats, to want a shotgun for self-defence. However, there can be no doubt that certain categories of businessmen and farmers might well need a second firearm for self-defence.
The last matter about which we are very nervous is the declaration of firearm-free areas. In principle this sounds absolutely wonderful, and in moral terms one cannot be opposed to it. However, we hope and trust that the regulations will make provision for intensive policing of such firearm- free areas, otherwise these areas will become an open invitation to criminal and political extremists, and then we will be saddled with tragedies.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, daar is regdeur die land vandag groot vreugde, groot vreugde in die geledere van misdaadsindikate, rowers en moordenaars, van mense wat ‘n skrikbewind voer met onwettige en ongeregistreerde wapens, want die verdedigingspotensiaal van die slagoffers van misdaad word vandag beperk.
Verkeerde medisyne is veel gevaarliker as geen medisyne, en dit is die gevaar van hierdie wetsontwerp. In ‘n tyd waarin die gewelddadige aanslag op die lewens van alle Suid-Afrikaners hoogty vier, word wetsgehoorsame burgers se vermoë om hulself te beskerm drasties aan bande gelê.
Alle syfers dui daarop dat verreweg die meeste moorde gepleeg word met onwettige, ongeregistreerde wapens. Outomatiese en semi-outomatiese gewere soos AK-47’s is vryelik in die onwettige mark beskikbaar. Die moordenaars en verkragters floreer, maar hierdie Regering maak dit hulle prioriteit om te begin by die beperking van wettige wapens.
‘n Wapenvrye Suid-Afrika? Honderd persent! Ek sal my voortande daarvoor gee as dit bereik kan word, maar ‘n eensydige aanslag op die wettige en verantwoordelike wapeneienaar terwyl die onwettiges floreer, maak van hierdie wetsontwerp die poort, nie tot ‘n wapenvrye Suid-Afrika nie, maar tot ‘n weerlose Suid-Afrika.
Ja, ek weet dat talle van die aanvanklike drakoniese bepalings versag is, maar nou het ek teen hierdie tyd ook al agtergekom dat dit die ANC se taktiek is. Dit is soos ‘n winkeleienaar wat ‘n produk van R100 aanvanklik R150 merk, en as hy dit dan afslaan na R120, dink die koper hy het ‘n winskopie gekoop. Die grootste besware van die AEB is teen die beperking van een wapen per persoon vir selfverdediging, die oorregulering van wettige wapenbesit en die bykomende magte wat aan die Minister gegee word. [Tussenwerpsels.] Hierdie Huis moet vandag daarvan kennis neem: hierdie is die sensitiefste stuk wetgewing wat nog hier deurgevoer is.
Daar is sonder veel moeite 300 000 handtekenings daarteen bekom, sonder effek. Gemoedere hieroor loop hoog. Die verset wat daar reeds teen hierdie wetgewing bestaan, kan ontaard in ‘n plofbare situasie die dag as hierdie wetsontwerp toegepas moet word. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairman, there is great joy throughout the country today, great joy in the ranks of crime syndicates, robbers and murderers, of people who conduct a reign of terror with illegal and unregistered weapons, because the defence potential of the victims of crime is being limited today.
The wrong medication is much more dangerous than no medicine, and this is the danger of this Bill. At a time when the violent onslaught on the lives of all South Africans is the order of the day the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves is being dramatically curtailed.
All figures indicate that by far the most murders are committed with illegal, unregistered weapons. Automatic and semi-automatic guns such as AK- 47s are freely available on the illegal market. The murderers and rapists are flourishing, but this Government makes it its priority to start limiting legal weapons.
A weapon-free South Africa? Hundred percent! I would give my eye teeth if that could be achieved, but a unilateral onslaught against the legal and responsible gun owner, while the illegal ones are flourishing, is making this Bill the road not to a gun-free South Africa, but a vulnerable South Africa.
Yes, I know that many of the initial draconian provisions have been mitigated, but by this time I have also realised that these are the ANC’s tactics. It is like a shop owner who initially prices a R100 product R150, and when he reduces it to R120 the buyer thinks that he is buying a bargain. The AEB’s greatest objections is the limit of one weapon per person for self-defence, over-regulation of legal gun ownership and the additional powers that the Minister is being given. [Interjections.] This House must note today that this is the most sensitive piece of legislation that has ever been passed here.
Without much trouble 300 000 signatures were collected against it, without any effect. Feelings are running high about this. The resistance that there already exists against this legislation can develop into an explosive situation the day that this Bill must be applied.]
Mr M A MANGENA: Chairperson, Azapo welcomes this Bill as a step in the right direction. We would have been happier with a complete ban on the ownership of firearms by civilians. The only persons carrying guns should be the police and army.
The desperate situation that we face in this country calls for drastic measures. There are roughly 4 million licensed guns in the hands of civilians in our country. About 80 guns are lost or stolen everyday. The number of illegal weapons is unknown, but it is just as easy for one to lay one’s hands on an illegal gun as it is to puff a ``zol’’ of dagga.
Guns, legal or illegal, are a common denominator in a wide range of crimes such as domestic violence, rape, robbery, taxi violence, car hijackings and murder. In 1998, guns ended the lives of 12 300 of our citizens. This means that 34 people are shot dead each day in our country. Is this not intolerable? Why do we not prohibit the ownership of firearms by all, and then command the security forces to go on a vigorous and thorough campaign to clean our country of all guns? Let us see then how effective car hijackers will be by using knobkerries for their purposes.
There is a pervasive gun ownership culture in our country that needs to be eradicated. When we buy our little boys toy guns and our little girls dolls, we are socialising them differently. The girls grow up to desire the real baby that they will mother, love and care for, while the boys will grow up with a tendency to own and worship a real gun. Are we then surprised when our little boys grow up to shoot us dead in our cars? In our antigun mentality campaign, we should encourage a ban on the manufacture and distribution of toy guns. Thirty four people murdered by guns everyday is intolerable. Let us consider drastic action. Azapo will support this Bill as a step in the right direction. [Applause.]
Mr M S BOOI: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister and chairperson of the portfolio committee, I am just sorry that when the hon Van Schalkwyk saw me coming to the platform he disappeared. I know exactly why he had to disappear. That is because he does not understand what he is arguing for. It is my duty to lecture him on that, but now he has disappeared and I do not know to whom I should now lecture. [Interjections.]
I hope that hon Gen Viljoen will not go away, because I have to lecture to him as I have been loyally doing in the portfolio committee. I have said to him that when we were arguing against the availability and abuse of firearms in the preamble of this Bill, we were not arguing against any white people or what: We were arguing about things that one could see. The hon member himself has been quoting and giving figures, using what Chetty has done in his investigations. We are talking about 4,5 million people who have registered firearms in South Africa and who are roaming around this country. That is the figure we are arguing about.
The attitude of the ANC is that guns do kill; guns do destroy families; guns do create widows; and guns do make orphans. Having that responsibility, what did the hon member expect the ANC to have done around this Bill? Was the ANC supposed to stand up and govern over dead bodies? Should the ANC not take the responsibility of introducing legislation that could help the people of South Africa?
The ANC’s point of view is that no irresponsible statements will resolve the issue of crime. When the economy goes down the ANC, as the governing party, will be called upon to take resposibility. It is with that resposibility in mind that we have been arguing and trying to bring to hon members’ attention that it is very important for the Firearms Control Bill to be brought before the House and voted for as one of the measures that could help in fighting crime.
One other thing that I really wanted to lecture Mr Van Schalkwyk on is the purpose of the Bill, which seeks to stem the proliferation of illegally possessed firearms by providing for the removal of those firearms from society and improving control over legally possessed firearms, to prevent crime that involves the use of firearms. I am saying that 4,5 million firearms are in the hands of different people. Since 1998 there had been an increasing number of people who shoot each other, and that there was no way in which the ANC could ditch that responsibility.
The general should note that most of us have promised our people a better
life, and we are saying that they have to enjoy part of that better life.
However, the difficulty is that, day in and day out, we come across
criminals. Now one does not formulate criminal'' by saying thatwe are
making this law for people who are criminals.’’ We do not know who the
criminals are. We want to find the criminals, and they can only be found by
the police. One can become a criminal only when one transgresses the law.
The Democratic Alliance’s formulation of criminals, which is very problematic, amounts to creating criminals in our mentality and saying that we are a society of criminals. That is where the hon Ms Van Wyk of the UDM becomes relevant, because she argues in turn that one then says the majority of our people, even up to the executive, are criminals and based on that, one then creates a law. That is not how it works. We are saying that criminals do exist, and that there are criminals who steal guns. If a man shoots his wife, he becomes a criminal. But before then he was not a criminal! He was a good family member, before he shot his wife. If he rapes his kid, he becomes a criminal.
It is on this basis that we are saying that the opposition cannot then expect us, in turn, to legislate for what does not exist. We legislate for what exists, on the basis that there are firearms on the farms, and that when criminals come they steal those firearms and use them against our people in robberies and hijackings. [Interjections.]
Gen C L VILJOEN: Mr Chairperson, will the hon member take a question?
Mr M S BOOI: Yes, I will take a question because I take the general quite seriously.
Gen C L VILJOEN: Mr Chairperson, will the hon member agree, on the problem of the legal firearm owners, that Minister Mufamadi said that 0.5% of those people can be regarded as criminals? So, will he then agree that there are more criminals outside the ranks of the legal firearms owners?
Mr M S BOOI: Mr Chairperson, I am not disputing that statement. What I am saying is, how does one arrive at that? There are committed criminals who are crime day in and day out. But where do they get their guns? That is the question we are trying to address here and, of course, what the Bill is informing us to do. I am not saying that there are no rapists in our country, and I am not saying that there are no people who are shooting others and hijacking their vehicles. People who plot those hijackings belong to gangs of criminals. We are saying that they do exist, but not everybody is part of that. Not everybody in this House is a criminal.
So, on that basis, we are saying that those who own guns should take the responsibility upon themselves for their safe storage. We are talking about those that are out there. One of the statements that one often hear is that there are many guns in the country that nobody knows in whose hands they are. We are saying that unless we can go back to our database and capture exactly what is happening, we will not be able to address the problem that the hon member is bringing to our attention. Let us go ahead and continue looking at this problem because it is not an easy one to resolve. I am very amazed at what the DP is saying here - that is that foreigners have been informing us as to what to do. Those are South Africans, and very responsible citizens. They are people who have been investigating and doing their research.
I agree that maybe Parliament has not been able to do a good job about the type of lobbyists or people who come to this Parliament to solicit the thinking of different members of Parliament, something which all of us have been exposed to. Those are very responsible people who have been asking questions such as: what does one do when there are no gun-free zones? And they have gone out of their way to test and show us what it is like to have a gun-free zone.
Those people have been able to show us what domestic violence is doing to our people. They have been doing a very responsible thing, taking some of the laws that we have put into place in the country to deal with domestic violence and sexual abuse, and asking what the issues are that we are confronted with. They say that guns are being seen as the bottomline that has led to the huge outcry in our communities from people who die, families that get disrupted and people children are orphaned. That is what we are confronted with.
The hon Boy Geldenhuys knows this as a matter of fact, so I do not understand his argument. If he was my relative, I would help him as I have always done in the portfolio committee. It is my duty. We have been saying
- and that is what the hon Velaphi of the IFP has been arguing - that nowhere in the Bill are we giving excessive powers to the Minister. We are not giving excessive powers to the Minister. The Minister has been very responsible: He has brought a lot of legislation before Parliament. We give him powers so that he does not get hamstrung, as the hon member has been commenting regarding the matter of presumption in Chapter 15. When a crime is committed does the hon member expect the Minister to come here and ask Parliament to give him a mandate while the criminals are taking the guns and hiding them or running away crossing the borders into Mozambique or anywhere else? Two things have happened. We have lost our best policemen. When information is leaked, people die in the process. That is why we cannot give the Minister excessive powers. The Minister has done a very responsible thing. When the information gets into their hands, they have to be very responsible. That is what the Minister and the executive are here for: to protect the individuals that are giving that information.
And when he gets that information, it is in the interest of the country that he acts. That is why we are given that responsibility. When he knows that there are illegal guns that are being thrown around, he should, as the Minister, take the decision and come and tell Parliament what exactly has been going on in relation to that issue. That is how we understand it in the ANC.
On the issue of implementation, there is no doubt that the police have shown commitment and have put together a huge budget, which we all have seen. We all have seen what exactly has been happening in relation to the implementation of this Bill. They are very confident and sure that we will be able to deliver around this Bill. They are not playing any dice.
Since they introduced Operation Crackdown, they have done their job very well. Since the new commissioner came in, there have been such a lot of arrests. He promised that he would put a million of them into prison. Today, there is a problem and not a word is being said about it. Many of those criminals are being released by the Correctional Services department because the police have being doing their job so successfully that they are getting the biggest criminals in their nets, and are taking them to prisons. Nobody here in this House is able to stand up and say that policemen are doing a good job. There are men and women who spend their Sundays at work, while others are sleeping, men and women who do not sleep for 24 to 48 hours, and who spend their lives running after criminals. Let us respect them. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon members, just before I call on the Minister, I wish to say that it is very astonishing that people can miss out on such a wonderful debate by making such a noise in the House.
Can you please pay attention? We are conducting an important debate in the House today. I have been listening very carefully to people making their points. Can you just listen to the debate, please? There are people holding conferences in the House, especially those who have just walked in. Please take your seats and listen.
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, once again, I would like to thank the hon members who have stood at this podium to support the Bill. It is an indication that there is a great future indeed for our country. At the same time, I wish to thank them for successfully bearing the noise that came from the Democratic Alliance about the purpose of this particular Bill.
What has emerged from the DP’s and New NP’s arguments is a passionate desire to stay with their toy guns. That is what has emerged. There is absolutely nothing substantive, in the form of any argument, that they have been capable of putting forward against this Bill, both here in House and in the portfolio committee.
Boy Geldenhuys made a very ridiculous statement by saying that it is not guns that kill, but people who kill. With what do they kill? What are they using to kill? Why does he have to come here and make such a horrible statement in the evening of his life that people kill people? People certainly use weapons to effect such killings.
Another issue has emerged. One would expect a responsible person such as the hon Martinus Van Schalkwyk to say that these are the ways and means by which we could make this Bill implementable, because, as he said here, the principle is fine. We should have responsible gun ownership and gun control, but he has not been able to come forward, as the hon Gen Viljoen did who engaged in discussions both with myself and members of the department regarding this specific issue. I am still astounded that, after those numerous meetings, we have not been able to convince him that this is a desirable piece of legislation.
The issue here is that, in the absence of what other police services have in the country in the form of highly advanced technology, we also have to use our people. That is why he has voted for the passage of a Bill here in this Parliament that came with the idea of the establishment of a community- policing forum. There is nothing wrong in appealing to the people to say that they must assist the SAPS, precisely for the same reason that he was advancing here: that, for so many kilometres, there is only one policeperson and one police van. What does he do to compensate for that particular handicap?
We have an asset in South Africa. We have developed the concept of a community-policing forum which is a new phenomenon in the entire continent. I have not seen it elsewhere in the world in operation, as we are attempting to do in South Africa. There is absolutely nothing wrong in saying ``Let us form a grand conspiracy against the criminal elements, mobilise the biggest possible number of our people and let them inform on the activities of the criminals.’’ There is nothing wrong with that. He used informers during the struggle against apartheid to inform against the people who were fighting for liberation then. Now he is reluctant to endorse the idea of people in this country saying that their next-door neighbours are hoarding illegal firearms. That would assist the police. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
We are saying that the South African public cannot be spectators in the fight against crime. We are agitating for the participation of the biggest possible number of people against crime. So, there is nothing wrong with that. We will be happy about it.
On the question of whether or not the Bill is going to be implementable, I have explained it several times in answer to the questions that I fielded from many people here. But I want to say, once again, that in the drafting of this Bill, top police officers - one of them who is there in the Gallery is an advocate and a police officer - at the head office in Pretoria were involved. It is not something that was sucked out of the thumbs of intellectuals outside the purview of police head quarters. They were involved, and as they are sitting there, they are convinced that this Bill is implementable, much as I am convinced that indeed it is implementable. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Amendment to the Bill put, as printed on the Order Paper (p740), namely:
That, in subclause (2)(a) of clause 120, the words ``or who ought reasonably to be aware’’ be omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
The Chairperson of Committees, in response to information provided by the
Minister of Safety and Security, drew the attention of the House to the
correction of a typographical error in clause 9(3)(a) on p12, line 35, by
inserting the word not'' between the wordsis’’ and ``unfit’’.
Question put: That the Bill, including the approved amendment and the correction of the said typographical error, be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 217: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Belot, S T; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, N R; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Buthelezi, M N; Carrim, Y I; Cassim, M F; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chohan, F I; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; De Lange, J H; Dhlamini, B W; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Duma, N M; Ebrahim, E I; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Feinstein, A J; Ferreira, E T; Frolick, C T; Gcina, C I; George, M E; Gerber, P-J A; Gillwald, C E; Gininda, M S; Gogotya, N J; Goniwe, T M; Goosen, A D; Govender, P; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N L; Hlengwa, M W; Hogan, B A; Jana, D P S; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Leeuw, S J; Lekgoro, M K; Leshika, T E; Lobe, M C; Lockey, D; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Lyle, A G; Magazi, M N; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Makasi, X C; Makunyane, T L; Makwetla, S P; Malebane, H F; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Malumise, M M; Mangena, M A; Manie, M S; Maphalala, M A; Mars, I; Marshoff, F B; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Matsepe-Casaburri, I F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbombo, N D; Mbongo, P F; Mdladlana, M M S; Mfundisi, I S; Middleton, N S; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mndende, O N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Moeketse, K M; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, E P; Mokaba, P R; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Moloto, K A; Momberg, J H; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Moosa, M V; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Motubatse, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mpontshane, A M; Mshudulu, S A; Msomi, M D; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mutsila, I; Mzizi, M A; Naidoo, S; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncinane, I Z; Ncube, N Z; Ndabandaba, L B G; Ndlovu, V B; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngubeni, J M; Ngwenya, M L; Nhlengethwa, D G; Nkomo, A S; Nkosi, D M; Nqakula, C; Nqodi, S B; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, S B; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Pieterse, R D; Rabinowitz, R; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Ramakaba- Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodike, M N; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ripinga, S S; Routledge, N C; Saloojee, E C; Schneemann, G D; Scott, M I; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Shilubana, T P; Sibiya, M S M; Sigcau, S N; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skosana, M B; Skweyiya, Z S T; Slabbert, J H; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, S V; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Wyk, A (Annelize); Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Woods, G; Xingwana, L M T; Yengeni, T S; Zita, L; Zondo, R P; Zulu, N E.
NOES - 59: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Bakker, D M; Bell, B G; Beukman, F; Blaas, A; Borman, G M; Botha, A J; Bruce, N S; Camerer, S M; Clelland, N J; Cupido, P W; Delport, J T; Dudley, C; Durand, J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gaum, A H; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Gous, S J; Green, L M; Greyling, C H F; Grobler, G A J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Lee, T D; Le Roux, J W; Madasa, Z L; McIntosh, G B D; Meshoe, K R J; Moorcroft, E K; Morkel, C M; Mulder, C P; Nel, A H; Ntuli, R S; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Pillay, S; Pretorius, I J; Schippers, J; Schoeman, R S; Selfe, J; Seremane, W J; Simmons, S; Singh, A; Smit, H A; Smuts, M; Sono, B N; Southgate, R M; Swart, S N; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A (Anna); Viljoen, C L.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time.
NATIONAL HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson and hon members, the Bill heralds one of the last components of the national health system to be restructured in line with the vision of a ``Better life for All’’.
Let me congratulate the old national party on initiating the transformation of laboratory services in this country. It was in 1973 that the old National Party government appointed the Meiring-Naudé Commission of Inquiry to advise it on laboratory services.
This commission recommended the establishment of a single nationally controlled and co-ordinated laboratory service. The NP did not have the courage and the political will to implement these recommendations. [Interjections.] Hence, they voted against the Bill.
Subsequently, two task teams, one under Prof Van Den Ende in 1995, and another under Prof Kallichurum in 1998, were appointed by this Government to advise it on the restructuring of these services. The two task teams corroborated the Meiring-Naude findings, which are still as relevant today as they were 27 years ago.
The Health Minmec considered three options for the restructuring of laboratories. The options were nationalisation, privatisation and a state- owned public enterprise. After carefully considering all the options, we chose the latter. I know that some parties within this House are obsessed, of course, with privatisation.
Health is a public good. Private health care in South Africa is the privilege of a few, because more than 80% of the population depends on the public health system. That is why we chose the public entity route. We must set policy to ensure equitable access to accessible and affordable health care services for all, whilst, at the same time, decentralising management autonomy to the executive to run the enterprise on sound business principles.
In order for hon members to appreciate our diagnostic and scientific capability, let me highlight the merits of just two institutions that will be incorporated into the National Health Laboratory Services. The SA Institute for Medical Research was established in 1917 by the government in partnership with the Chamber of Mines, primarily to conduct medical research into diseases which were common in the mines. It now employs over 2000 people and provides almost 50% of all the laboratory services in the public health sector, the rest being provided by the provincially owned health laboratory services.
The department opened negotiations with the Chamber of Mines, with a view to integrating all laboratory services into a public entity. When the Chamber of Mines withdrew unconditionally from the SA Institute for Medical Research, this then paved the way for the comprehensive restructuring of all publicly owned laboratories.
I would like, at this juncture, to thank the Chamber of Mines for its commitment to medical research, which was shown through its participation in the SA Institute for Medical Research as joint partner with Government.
The National Institute for Virology, which came into being in April 1976 when the laboratories of the Poliomyelitis Research Foundation were transferred to the Department of Health, serves as the national reference laboratory for South Africa and the region for viral diseases of medical importance. The institute is a WHO reference laboratory for viral haemorrhagic fevers and for vaccine-preventable viral diseases such as poliomyelitis. Scientists from the institute play a key role in diagnosing and assisting in the control of viral haemorrhagic fevers in Africa and the Middle East. One such initiative was the diagnosis of the Ebola virus in the DRC.
An important component of the NHLS will be the possible creation, within it, of a national institute for communicable Diseases which will be formed from the National Institute for Virology, together with the public health microbiology laboratories of the SA Institute for Medical Research and an epidemiology unit. This new institute will play a crucial role in the surveillance of communicable diseases for the SADC region.
This consolidation of health care resources will promote the harmonisation of laboratory standards and quality assurance, efficiency, cost- effectiveness and the rational use of resources, amongst others, through benefits from economies of scale. It will also promote access to new and appropriate technologies.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the NCOP Select Committee on Social Services and the portfolio committee for carefully considering this Bill. I was informed regularly by officials from my department about progress in the discussions of the select committee, and was able to give guidance wherever needed. As a matter of fact, yesterday, I attended the meeting of the portfolio committee. I also personally attended some of these consultations. I would like to thank the Chairperson of the Portfolio Comitteee, Dr Nkomo, and his staff for piloting the Bill up to this stage. I sincerely hope that this House will approve this Bill. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I think it is appropriate for me to refer you to the Rules of this House, which expressly prohibit members from standing in the passages or in the gangways and conversing. It is not becoming of the House to engage in that kind of communication. I think, as we have ruled before, you are permitted to converse sitting side by side, but, certainly, you cannot converse standing in the passages with your backs to the Chair. I think it is most unacceptable, and I would like to appeal to you to ensure that we keep the decorum of the House.
Dr A S NKOMO: Mr Chairperson, I rise as Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Health to report on the work of the committee with regard to the National Health Laboratory Service Bill. The Bill was not amended by the committee, that is, of the National Assembly, as the initial areas of concern were very competently taken care of by our colleagues in the Social Services Committee of the NCOP. The agenda of this Government has been to systematically transform our institutions to meet the needs of our people in the most effective and cost-effective way.
We have based our efforts on the principle of equity as we want to ensure that every person in the rural and urban areas of our country has access to crucial services. This Bill, then, amalgamates previously fragmented public health laboratory services; co-ordinates services in a cost-effective manner to do away with duplications and wastage of limited resources; and ensures that the research agenda of laboratories has a direct bearing on improving service delivery and the overall transformation of our health system.
This Bill provides for cost-effective laboratory services to all public sector health care providers and government institutions. And, in an effort to improve and contribute towards the public/private partnership, provision is made for the private health care providers to purchase services from the service. But, we want to caution against encouraging the attainment of profits to the detriment of service delivery, and we say this in the spirit of ``health before profits.’’ This service will support health research and, very importantly, provide training for health science education. Within this Bill, there is a very strong emphasis on capacity-building, which is in keeping with the President’s call to extend our skills base, for example, the promotion of training of laboratory and associated personnel; and granting of bursaries and loans for studies, of course, in the field of laboratory services.
This Bill involves 6 000 health workers employed in public health laboratory services. They mainly include pathologists, medical technologists, and technicians, research scientists, professional nurses, administrative staff and general assistants.
The committee has receive the assurance from the department that matters relating to conditions of service, salaries, transfer of staff and the inevitable retrenchment of staff have been dealt with in the most effective way, through processes in the bargaining chamber, with the stakeholders.
Given our progressive labour laws, we expect the transition and transfer of personnel to the new public entity to be as smooth as possible.
I want to report to the House that the unions also have supported this Bill and in fact have very regularly attended briefings and so on. This is a process, as the Minister has already indicated, that has been happening for quite some time. Allow me to congratulate the Minister and the team for the extensive groundwork which they did before the passage of this legislation through Parliament. As the Minister indicated, she has actually personally also attended sittings of the select committee in the NCOP.
Although the Bill makes provision for transitional arrangements, an in- depth audit of the assets which will be transferred to the new entity to ensure a smooth transition has already been completed and, to prevent chaos, different dates have been stipulated for the commencement of different provisions of the Bill.
I want to take this opportunity to applaud the creation of a National Institute for Communicable Diseases, which will form part of the new service. This initiative is crucial as we witness the sharp increase in communicable diseases and related deaths in our country. This new unit has an absolutely crucial role to play in the surveillance of communicable diseases, especially monitoring new and re-emerging diseases, through a robust and integrated national disease survellaince system.
This Bill brings us closer to our objective of accessibility, affordability and efficiency, and it is therefore without reservation that I commend this Bill to the House. [Applause.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Chairman, the DP will not be supporting this Bill despite the Minister’s somewhat biased history of the process which established the single laboratory service. The truth is - and I am sure the Minister will agree - that when previous governments looked at this matter they realised that it was fraught with difficulties and therefore dropped it, but not this Government, and certainly not this Minister.
I certainly believe that Dr Nkomo’s speech greatly exaggerates the potential for the new laboratory service that this Bill creates. To be frank, there really seems no reason for this legislation. The department gave a very frank briefing to the portfolio committee last Tuesday. The Minister was there. I was grateful. I really was very grateful for the very frank way in which questions were answered. But on further analysis I must say that, really, no valid reasons have been given for the abolition of the existing laboratories in the public health sector in favour of this new body. One must therefore presume that there is little more behind this legislation than a further attempt on the part of the department to centralise all control of public health services - something that we have seen happening over a period of time, with the resulting deterioration in health services in South Africa.
The DP opposes very vigorously the centralisation process, especially when existing structures are working perfectly well and there is no need to make this change. But we are also concerned that, at the time when the Government has a declared policy of privatisation of parastatals, what this Bill is actually doing is creating a new parastatal. This makes no sense. The hon the Minister says that the DP is paranoid about privatisation. Let me say to the Minister that she is quite right, because at the end of the day the only way we are going to make this country work is to start privatising our parastatals. I want to say to her that, without any shadow of doubt, the DP is fully committed to the process of privatisation and we certainly cannot support a Bill which is in complete contradiction of this principle. We were told at the portfolio committee that the question of whether the laboratory services should be privatised was discussed during the negotiation process, but eventually this concept was rejected because the unions and staff associations were opposed to it on the basis that public- sector control would lead to greater cost-effectiveness and efficiency than private-sector control. Of course, this is rubbish, and no doubt such a point of view was based more on the hope of job preservation on the part of the staff and the unions than on any real concern for cost-effectiveness or efficiency.
The truth of the matter is that quite clearly this new laboratory service will not necessarily do anything to preserve jobs. It may, in fact, have the opposite effect. Privatisation would have been a far better option, because privatisation leads to cost-effectiveness, efficiency, profitability and jobs. Obviously cost-effectiveness, efficiency and profitability will create jobs, another point that I think the hon the Minister missed. Let us ask the Airports Company whether this is not the truth.
Further, other than the comment in the memorandum that the service ``will be funded from the current sources and it is not envisaged that the costs will be more than the current level of expenditure’’, no information has been provided to the portfolio committee regarding, among other things, the actual cost implications for the establishment of the single body, what the current level of expenditure is and the financial implications, which will have an effect on a variety of bodies, including provincial health departments. These are serious problems. These are serious shortcomings in this Bill. They have to be addressed and they have not yet been.
Furthermore, we have been told the transitional process that will have to take place between what exists at present and the establishment of this new service will take approximately 18 months. In fact there is no deadline set for this particular matter to be settled. It is therefore anticipated that there will be many staff disputes and many staff changes that will have to be dealt with over the months ahead. So much, then, for a new and settled centralised body that the unions and staff associations believe they will become part of. It is just not going to happen.
The DP believes that this new national health laboratory is ill-conceived and badly implemented. Time will tell whether it will work and how successful it will be, but the odds are against it, and we certainly cannot support it.
Dr R RABINOWITZ: Mr Chairperson, major structural changes will be introduced by this Bill. They will be complex and costly, but, if the legislation achieves its stated aims of providing efficient and effective laboratory services, supporting health research and providing training for health science education, they will be justified. When one thinks of laboratory services and the relationship of public to private sector, one cannot help remembering the following two facts. Firstly, the Human Science Research Council’s report of professional salary scales showed that private pathology professors were the most highly paid professionals in the country. Secondly, kickback schemes between private practitioners and private labs led to the exposure of bloodsuckers who benefited financially by doing excessive tests, putting a strain on medical schemes.
These facts are indisputable, but people are people. There are rogues in both the public and the private sector. The answer would not be to shrink or destroy the private pathology sector, but to ensure that it is regulated in terms of minimum standards and well monitored and policed. The best way to narrow the gap between services to the wealthy and the poor is to establish private-public partnerships: for Government to provide essential services where no one can be contracted to provide them, but to foot the bill to pay private providers on a transparent competitive basis when suitable and competent private services exist.
In fact the Government must compete with the private sector because, as the largest stakeholder, it would bring down prices. The Bill provides for this to happen. It allows the National Health Laboratory Service to enter into contracts and to enter into partnerships. If the board established in terms of the Bill attempts to monopolise all laboratory services in the country, the dangers are that we will establish another inefficient bureaucracy, swallow money and add nothing to the existing services.
The IFP is opposed to a national socialist health service, but we recognise the value of a co-ordinated national laboratory service. Already we have excellent institutions in the form of the SA Institute for Medical Research and the National Institute for Virology. There is no reason why they should be compromised by this Bill and we support the Bill in the expectation that they will not be. There are overlaps and gaps in laboratory services in the country and, over the long term, rationalisation and co-ordination of services can only be to our benefit.
The country is bedevilled right now by series of crises that require rapid, co-ordinated initiatives, like the foot-and-mouth outbreak, cholera, the state of our polluted rivers and the small number of people who are tested for HIV. One hopes that the board will also take the initiative to forge links with other departments such as Water Affairs, Environmental Affairs, Public Works and Local Government to cope with such matters as disposal of medical waste and the provision of sewerage, together with improved water supplies to rural areas.
The IFP is particularly eager to see expansion of Aids testing services in rural areas. International and local organisations that exhibited at the 13th International Aids Congress said that they had made an offer to Government to provide full mobile testing units for rural areas. To reduce the stigma of offering Aids tests, these mobile testing units offer screening tests for infectious diseases using saliva and discreet confirmation of HIV-positive results using a drop of blood. One would like to see these possibilities investigated, providers accredited, partnerships struck and such teams rolled out to work with community health workers who would offer family support.
I have no doubt that this national service is going to encounter problems transporting specimens to laboratories for testing. [Time expired.]
Dr S J GOUS: Mnr die Voorsitter, nie alleen poog hierdie wetgewing om ‘n regspersoon te skep om laboratoriumdienste aan die staat te lewer nie, dit poog terselfdertyd om die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika te verander en te hersien. Die Grondwet sê duidelik dit vereis dat toegang tot gesondheidsdienste verseker word, maar die aanhef tot hierdie wetgewing bepaal dat gesondheidsdienste as sodanig ‘n reg is en nie alleen die toegang daartoe nie.
Hierdie wetgewing skep ‘n splinternuwe staatsinstelling. Dit is nou op dieselfde tydstip wat die Regering hulle koppe breek om ander staatsinstellings met mag en mening te privatiseer. Is dit nou nie tipies van die Departement van Gesondheid om totaal uit pas te wees met die res van die land nie? Klousule 15 diskwalifiseer en elimineer die hele private sektor effektief om enigsins deel te hê aan die verskaffing van laboratorium- of patologiese dienste aan die staat.
Ons weet mos nou almal dat die staatsmasjien op sy beste nie kan kers vashou by die private sektor nie, veral nie met hoogs tegniese en gespesialiseerde dienste soos patologie nie. Die gevolg hiervan gaan doodeenvoudig wees dat sekere hoogs gespesialiseerde dienste eenvoudig afgeskaal gaan word, of nog erger, heeltemal gaan verdwyn.
Hierdie wetgewing gaan ook die ongeveer 5 000 werknemers by die geaffekteerde instellings ernstig blootstel en moontlik baie van hulle benadeel. Ongetwyfeld gaan heelwat werkgeleenthede in die proses van oorskakeling en rasionalisering verlore gaan. Hierdie reëlings is geensins uitgespel nie en vakbonde kan dus met baie goeie rede onrustig voel. Feit van die saak is, heelwat persone gaan hulle werk verloor in hierdie proses.
Soos ons reeds met hospitale ondervind het, gaan die sogenaamde rasionalisering beteken dat sekere laboratoriums gaan sluit. Dit beteken vir die mense op die grond eenvoudig dat dienslewering gaan verswak of verminder. Dit is nou weer eens op ‘n tydstip wat die klem val op dienslewering. Die verhoogde finansiële las op provinsies sal eweneens ‘n negatiewe effek op dienslewering hê. Soos met alle ander gesondheidswetgewing loop die onaanvaarbare mag van die Minister van Gesondheid soos ‘n goue draad deur hierdie wetgewing.
Laastens is daar ook ernstige kommer uitgespreek oor die lewensvatbaarheid van laboratoriums by opleidingsinstellings wat nie meer hulle navorsingsrol sal kan vervul nie. Soos gewoonlik was die konsultasieproses ook weer onder verdenking. In die geheel is dit dus ongewenste en ondeurdagte wetgewing. Die Nuwe NP en die Demokratiese Alliansie sal dit teenstaan. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr S J GOUS: Mr Chairperson, not only does this legislation attempt to create a juristic person to deliver laboratory services to the state, at the same time it attempts to change and review the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The Constitution states clearly that it demands that access to health services is ensured, but the preamble to this legislation stipulates that health services as such are a right, and not only access to them.
This legislation creates a brand-new state institution. This is now at the same point in time in which the Government is breaking their heads to privatise other state institutions with all their might. Is it not typical of the Department of Health to be totally out of step with the rest of the country? Clause 15 effectively disqualifies and eliminates the entire private sector to have any part whatsoever in the provision of laboratory or pathological services to the state.
Now surely we all know that the state machinery at its best cannot compare to the private sector, particularly not with highly technical and specialised services like pathology. The consequence of this is simply going to be that certain highly specialised services are going to be scaled down, or even worse, disappear completely.
This legislation is also going to seriously expose and possibly be to the detriment of many of the approximately 5 000 employees at the affected institutions. No doubt many job opportunities are going to be lost in the process of conversion and rationalisation. These arrangements have not been spelt out at all and trade unions therefore have good reason to feel uneasy. The fact of the matter is, a significant number of people are going to lose their jobs in this process.
As we have already experienced with hospitals, the so-called rationalisation is going to mean that certain laboratories must close. This means for the people on the ground that service delivery is simply going to deteriorate or diminish. This is once again at a point in time in which the emphasis falls on service delivery. The increased financial burden on provinces will also have a negative effect on service delivery. As with all other health legislation, the unacceptable power of the Minister of Health runs through this legislation like a golden thread.
Finally, serious concern has also been expressed about the viability of laboratories at training institutions which can no longer fulfil their research role. As usual, the consultation process was once again under suspicion. On the whole this is therefore undesirable and ill-considered legislation. The New NP and the Democratic Alliance will oppose it. [Interjections.]]
Mr S NAIDOO: Chairperson, the National Health Laboratory Service Bill facilitates a very objective alignment and, in other words, it focuses in the right direction.
It certainly gives life to our new Constitution wherein every South African is guaranteed a right to basic health care. In this regard, the Bill seeks to consolidate and establish a national health laboratory, thereby making the service cost-effective and incisive. It is also based on sound business principles and in this regard, I wish to quote Kenfield Morely:
In investing money, the amount of interest you want should depend on whether you want to eat well or whether you want to sleep well.
I believe that this Bill attempts to do both.
This Bill is a well-calculated one and does not have a top-down approach. It provides for one establishment of a fully representative board. With the enabling framework and powers vested in the board, it allows sufficient flexibility to perform such additional functions in the event of any epidemics. The UDM supports the Bill, and I wish to raise two concerns. Firstly, the board does not seek to elect its own chairperson and deputy chairperson. Secondly, whilst this Bill provides for foreign governments to acquire services from our institutions, what happens in the event of nonpayment?
Ms C DUDLEY: Chairperson, the ACDP is opposed to this Bill because it constitutes centralisation and the effective nationalisation of our forensic chemistry laboratories and all provincial health laboratories. This includes laboratories from the SA Institute for Medical Research and National Centre for Occupational Health.
This Bill is retrogressive in that centralisation will not bring services closer to the people, and will certainly be not more efficient or cost- effective. In fact, centralisation of services could create endless transport problems, thus causing delays in doctors and hospitals receiving results on tests. Many of these services could well be privatised but, instead, the Government is nationalising and promoting the existence of a monopoly. Coercion is another factor, as the public health sector is now compelled to purchase from the national health laboratory service.
Also of great concern is the fact that Government is passing this Bill without having reached an agreement with the eight teaching hospitals which are acutely affected. National scientists and highly qualified people who train our medical graduates and are involved in research projects will be negatively affected, and this will impact on future generations.
Due to the closure of the provincial laboratory at the University of Orange Free State, the total personnel component will cost the university an additional R30 million a year. There is a great risk of marginalising medical faculties as far as research is concerned. Losing top scientists and professionals is another risk, as people are expected to relocate families, etc at the dictate of the Government. These people are in demand worldwide and easily poached. The ACDP is not satisfied that there has been proper consultation with relevant people in regard to this Bill, which runs counter to all international practices. The ACDP will therefore not support it. Dr E E JASSAT: Mr Chairperson and hon members, I want to commend the Minister and her department for a job well done.
As a medical doctor who has suffered much frustration related to laboratory support, especially in rural areas, this Bill is nothing but good news. In fact, the establishment of a new laboratory service to support the national health system is long overdue. Of course, the process entails the abolition of the SA Institute for Medical Research, the National Institute for Virology, the National Centre for Occupational Health and the forensic chemistry laboratories. These institutions, together with provincial health laboratory services, are amalgamated under this Bill we are debating this afternoon.
We hope that this initiative will provide for an integrated, co-ordinated, affordable, accessible and equitable health laboratory service which will primarily support the public health sector. The streamlining of this new service is in line with international developments which promote health, harmonisation of laboratory standards and quality assurance, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and the optimal use of national resources. This new environment is ideal to promote access to new technologies. The Bill extensively deals with issues related to intellectual property rights, discoveries, inventions, improvements in medicines and so on.
This Bill enables the provision of services beyond our country’s borders, and it is an opportunity to harmonise laboratory standards throughout the SADC region and lend support to those neighbours who require such support. We are aware that we cannot function optimally if we do not support our neighbours.
The Bill does not confine the service to the SADC region only. In fact, partnership with counterparts throughout the world is encouraged to ensure that we develop and enhance best practices and excellence.
I wish to differ with the hon Mr Ellis and hon Ms Dudley. I cannot agree with them when they say that privatisation is the answer. Privatisation leads to kickbacks, as recently revealed in Johannesburg, where doctors were perversely rewarded for sending samples to some private laboratories, resulting in increased costs to both patients and medical aid societies. We in the ANC wish the new service well, and call on them to ensure that the objective of the Bill, ie improved service delivery, is at all times paramount.
The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF HEALTH: Chairperson, before I make my concluding remarks, let me acknowledge in the gallery out there Prof Johnny Sacks, who was part of the task team, and thank him for a job well done. [Applause.]
Obviously, I cannot, and will not thank the DP, the New NP and the ACDP. Who was Dr Gous speaking for? Mr Ellis stood here and spoke on behlaf of the DP, and Dr Gous spoke on behalf of the Democratic Alliance. Is there a party in this Parliament known as the Democratic Alliance? I did not know that it exists. Of course, I can understand that change, in most cases, is very threatening, and that sometimes it causes pain and is very frightening. But that does not mean that we should not move on or that we should do nothing and continue to nurse the feelings of the likes of Mr Ellis, Dr Gous and Ms Dudley.
Who on earth would not want to promote harmonisation of any services, in this regard the laboratory standards, quality assurances, efficiency, cost- effectiveness and the rational use of resources? Who would not want to promote access to new and appropriate technologies? It is only the DP. Or is it the Democratic Alliance?
I should like to thank Dr Nkomo very much for supporting the Bill. Indeed it is true that we have taken all steps to ensure its smooth implementation. I think that this is the result of extensive consultation with stakeholders and the fact that the implementation will be phased in.
Of course, Mr Ellis, also did not support the Bill, knows very well that the previous government did not implement the recommendations because different services were planned for different races. Therefore, a single laboratory service would not have worked indeed. I think he should get this straight into his head: Health is public good and cannot be privatised carte blanche, full stop! We will not privatise health.
A proper situation analysis and an audit of assets has, indeed, been done with due diligence, to plan for the implementation. We are, therefore, really confident about the implementation.
I do not know about the mobile units that Madam Rabinowitz kept on talking about. I do not have before me any offers of the mobile units to do rapid HIV tests. All I know is that we are working very closely with the National Institute for Virology, which is validating these tests. As she knows - and I have said this repeatedly - we have done an audit of our voluntary counselling and testing sites, and we are now in a position to expand those. But I do not know about the mobile ones - I have not heard of them. Maybe she can share the information with me in my office. Let me also ask her, how does one privatise in the face of the kickback that she is pointing out? [Interjections.] Competition is good. But how does one protect the interests of the public in the face of irresponsible privatisation? I hope she will answer those questions for me.
Dr Gous also prefers privatisation. Of course, the public sector could not compete with the private sector, precisely because of the horrible state in which the NP left it. We could not. This gives us an opportunity to do that. It is not true that this Bill gives too much power to the Minister. I am sure he has not even seen that the board of the professionals will, indeed, be appointed to oversee the operations of the National Health Laboratory Services on behalf of the Minister. So, I do not know where the Minister will get the powers Dr Gous is talking about.
I would like to thank Mr Naidoo very much for supporting the Bill. Let me just say to him that the Minister appoints the chairperson precisely because the Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, is an accountable person with regard to health services delivery.
Ms Dudley was not here yesterday. I do not understand how she can stand up here and debate this Bill. [Interjections.] She just does not understand what we were talking about yesterday. So I am not surprised about the remarks she has made. Is it the view of her church members that we should privatise? [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Party, New National Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).
The House adjourned at 17:27. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Subcommittee of the Joint Programme Committee on 12 October
2000 took a decision, in accordance with Joint Rule 216, that the
Marine Living Resources Amendment Bill [B 68 - 2000] (National
Assembly - sec 76(1)) be fast-tracked by, where necessary,
shortening any period within which any step in the legislative
process relating to the Bill must be completed, in order to make
it possible for the Bill to be passed by both Houses of Parliament
before adjournment in November 2000.
In terms of Joint Rule 216(4) this decision must be tabled in both
Houses for ratification.
(2) The following Bill was introduced in the National Assembly on 12
October 2000 and referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for
classification in terms of Joint Rule 160:
(i) Marine Living Resources Amendment Bill [B 68 - 2000]
(National Assembly - sec 76) - (Portfolio Committee on
Environmental Affairs and Tourism - National Assembly).
(3) Assent by the President of the Republic in respect of the
following Bill:
(i) Local Government: Municipal Structures Amendment Bill [B
51D - 2000] - Act No 33 of 2000 (assented to and signed by
President on 11 October 2000).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The President of the Republic:
Memorandum on Vote No 1 - "Presidency", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
2001.
- The Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces:
Memorandum on Vote No 2 - "Parliament", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
2001.
- The Minister of Home Affairs:
Memorandum on Vote No 14 - "Home Affairs", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
2001.
- The Minister of Education:
Memorandum on Vote No 8 - "Education", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Foreign Affairs:
Memorandum on Vote No 11 - "Foreign Affairs", Adjustments Estimate,
2000-2001.
- The Minister of Defence:
Memorandum on Vote No 7 - "Defence", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Finance:
(1) Memorandum on Vote No 31 - "Statistics South Africa",
Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
(2) Memorandum on Vote No 36 - "National Treasury", Adjustments
Estimate, 2000-2001.
(3) Memorandum on Adjustments Estimate for 2000-2001.
(4) Adjustments Estimate of Expenditure to be defrayed from the
National Revenue Fund during the financial year ending 31 March
2001 [RP 1-2000].
- The Minister for Provincial and Local Government:
Memorandum on Vote No 22 - "Provincial and Local Government",
Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:
Memorandum on Vote No 4 - "Arts, Culture, Science and Technology",
Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Transport:
Memorandum on Vote No 33 - "Transport", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
2001.
- The Minister of Public Enterprises:
Memorandum on Vote No 23 - "Public Enterprises", Adjustments Estimate,
2000-2001.
- The Minister of Public Works:
Memorandum on Vote No 26 - "Public Works", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-
2001.
- The Minister of Social Development:
Memorandum on Vote No 35 - "Social Development", Adjustments Estimate,
2000-2001.
- The Minister of Safety and Security:
Memorandums on -
(1) Vote No 17 - "Independent Complaints Directorate", Adjustments
Estimate, 2000-2001.
(2) Vote No 28 - "South African Police Service", Adjustments
Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Housing:
Memorandum on Vote No 15 - "Housing", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Trade and Industry:
Memorandum on Vote No 32 - "Trade and Industry", Adjustments Estimate,
2000-2001.
- The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
Memorandum on Vote No 18 - "Justice and Constitutional Development",
Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism:
Memorandum on Vote No 9 - "Environmental Affairs and Tourism",
Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister for the Public Service and Administration:
Memorandums on -
(1) Vote No 24 - "Public Service and Administration", Adjustments
Estimate, 2000-2001.
(2) Vote No 25 - "Public Service Commission", Adjustments Estimate,
2000-2001.
(3) Vote No 27 - "South African Management Development Institute",
Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Communications: (1) Memorandum on Vote No 5 - “Communications”, Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
(2) Report and Financial Statements of the National Electronic Media
Institute of South Africa for 1999-2000.
- The Minister of Labour:
Memorandum on Vote No 19 - "Labour", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Correctional Services:
Memorandum on Vote No 6 - "Correctional Services", Adjustments
Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:
emorandums on -
(1) Vote No 3 - "Agriculture", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
(2) Vote No 20 - "Land Affairs", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry:
Memorandum on Vote No 34 - "Water Affairs and Forestry", Adjustments
Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Minerals and Energy:
Memorandum on Vote No 21 - "Minerals and Energy", Adjustments Estimate,
2000-2001.
- The Minister of Health:
Memorandum on Vote No 13 - "Health", Adjustments Estimate, 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Sport and Recreation:
Memorandum on Vote No 29 - "Sport and Recreation", Adjustments
Estimate, 2000-2001.
COMMITTEE REPORTS: National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women on Police Crime Statistics on Rape, dated 10 October 2000:
The Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women has noted the fact that crime statistics reported by the SAPS at present do not disaggregate rape statistics by sex.
Rape, as defined in South African law, is a crime which can only be perpetrated against women. Yet, the police present their crime figures routinely per 100 000 of the total population (ie men and women), instead of presenting those figures per 100 000 women. Since women make up approximately half the population, the burden of rape faced by women is essentially twice that faced by the total population. Presenting figures per total population diminishes the seriousness of the problem, especially in the calculation of the rate of rape.
The editor of “The World’s Women 1995: Trends and Statistics” has reported that most countries define rape in relation to the female population and therefore present data only for the female population, per 100 000 women.
The Joint Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women therefore calls on the SAPS and Statistics SA, during the review of crime statistics that is currently under way, to ensure that -
1) rape statistics are disaggregated by sex; and 2) all crime statistics are routinely presented in a manner which is sex-disaggregated.
The above will bring South Africa in line with the commitments made by Government in respect of the Beijing Platform for Action and CEDAW.