National Council of Provinces - 02 November 2000
THURSDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2000 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
_____
The Council met at 14:05.
The Deputy Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr M I MAKOELA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:
That the Council -
(1) thanks the Minister of Health, Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, for having a very successful National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which started on 1 October 2000;
(2) is aware that breast cancer is a scourge that affects all women regardless of race, creed or colour;
(3) notes that in South Africa the awareness of breast cancer is very low among black women, so symptoms are discovered late, leading to a high mortality rate among this group of women, far more than any other group of women;
(4) further notes that risk factors include hereditary factors, not having had any children or having one’s first child in one’s thirties, being over 50, having a high fat diet and prolonged use of hormone replacement therapy;
(5) also notes that unlike the USA and Britain, South Africa does not have a specific policy on screening for breast cancer using regular mammograms, but all South Africans are always encouraged by the department to do regular self-examinations and to seek medical help should a lump be found; and (6) considers actively participating in publicity campaigns against this traumatic disease.
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:
That the Council calls upon the Government and the people of South Africa to -
(1) support the international search for genuine peace in the Middle East in spite of attempts, including terrorist action, to derail the process;
(2) discourage attempts to divide South Africans and to carry Middle Eastern divisions into South Africa and to inflame opinion, which is not helpful to the process of supporting and building a fair and lasting peace in the best interests of all the people in the region, or of world peace and national unity; and
(3) show real understanding and sympathy for the legitimate aspirations and claims of elected governments in the region and to support the efforts of peacemakers, including the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to get the peace process back on track.
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:
That the Council -
(1) noting that -
(a) the Democratic Alliance is fully aware of the human rights
atrocities committed by the apartheid state against our people
before 1994;
(b) the struggle of the people of South Africa is not dissimilar to
the struggle of the Palestinian people against oppression and
exploitation;
(c) the landless masses of South Africa suffered a similar fate to
that which the landless people of Palestine have suffered; and
(d) the essential tenets of the apartheid system were not unlike the
essential tenets of the strategy of the Israeli state against
the people of Palestine; and most fundamentally, the death of
Muhammad Al-Durra, an innocent 12-year-old Palestinian boy, in
the hands of his father, caused by live bullets from the brutal
Israeli security forces, is a repeat of the death of Hector
Peterson in Soweto in 1976 by live bullets from the brutal
apartheid security forces,
(2) calls on the Democratic Alliance and its leader, Tony Leon, to -
(a) state categorically whether they see a comparison between the
apartheid struggle and the struggle of the Palestinian people;
(b) condemn the brutal human rights violations committed by the
Israeli state against the people of Palestine;
[Interjections.]
(c) undertake to viciously fight against a repetition of our
apartheid history ... [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Hon members, order! Hon member, you are making a long speech. Can you make your motion shorter?
Mr M V MOOSA: I am almost finished, Chairperson. I continue:
... wherever it rears its evil head, especially as it does so
now in Palestine, to save humanity from such pain and suffering;
and
(d) undertake to publicly communicate the abhorrence that millions
of peace- and freedom-loving South Africans ...
[Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Hon member, can you sit down. Hon members, do not provoke emotions from either side. This exchange results from the exchange of emotions and interruptions. I am not going to call anyone to order, because there are interruptions from both sides. Continue, hon member.
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, I continue:
... feel towards the brutal Israeli security forces.
Mnr C ACKERMANN: Voorsitter, ek gee kennis dat by die volgende sitting van die Raad sal voorstel:
Dat die Raad kennis neem van -
(1) die DA se stewige vertoning tot dusver in die plaaslike algemene
verkiesingsveldtog;
(2) die ongekende toenemende ondersteuning vir die DA en die
entoesiastiese wyse waarop die leierskap van die DA ontvang word
in voorheen sogenaamde ``no-go zones'' dwarsdeur die land;
(3) die totale oorheersing van die DA in die Kaapse Metropool asook
die oorweldigende steun wat die DA se burgemeesterskandidaat,
mnr Peter Marais, onder alle kiesers in die Wes-Kaap geniet,
veral ten opsigte van armoedeverligting en AZT;
(4) die totale chaos wat binne ANC-geledere heers oor die aanwysing
van kandidate en die flou vertoning van hierdie party tot dusver
in die munisipale algemene verkiesing;
(5) die toenemende afname van kiesersvertroue teenoor die President,
asook hulle ontevredenheid oor mnr Mbeki se hantering van
landsake en oënskynlike opsigtelike afwesigheid uit die RSA; en
(6) die ANC se totale onvermoë om 'n beter lewe vir al die mense op
grondvlak te skep en hul gebruik van die Palestynse-Israeli-
konflik om sekere voordele daaruit te haal wat hoegenaamd niks
met Suid-Afrika te doen het nie. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairperson, I give notice that at the next sitting of the Council I shall move:
That the Council notes - (1) the DA’s strong showing up to now in the local general election campaign;
(2) the unprecedented growing support for the DA and the enthusiastic manner in which the leadership of the DA is received in former so- called “no-go areas” throughout the country;
(3) the overall dominance of the DA in the Cape Metropole, as well as the overwhelming support which the DA’s mayoral candidate, Mr Peter Marais, enjoys among all voters in the Western Cape, especially in respect of poverty relief and AZT;
(4) the total chaos within ANC ranks about the nomination of candidates and the poor performance to date of this party in the municipal general election;
(5) the growing decline of voter confidence in the President, as well as their dissatisfaction with Mr Mbeki’s handling of matters of state and his seemingly conspicuous absence from the RSA; and
(6) the ANC’s total inability to create a better life for all at grassroots level and their use of the Palestine-Israeli conflict in order to extract from it certain benefits which have nothing at all to do with South Africa.]
Ms C BOTHA: Chairperson, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:
That the Council -
(1) requests the support of the President for a call to the end of
all senseless and brutal killing in Africa, in the Middle East
and wherever it occurs; and
(2) calls on all South African parliamentarians not to use the hurt
and death of others as a cheap political trick in the Council.
HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I give notice that at the next sitting of the Council I shall move: That the Council -
(1) notes with regret the escalation of the cholera epidemic in KwaZulu- Natal;
(2) commends the Department of Health and the joint crisis committee for their prompt handling of the outbreak of cholera in the affected areas;
(3) urges the Department of Health to provide effective drugs to the cholera patients in rehydration centres;
(4) expresses condolences to the families of the deceased; and
(5) calls on the private sector to play a more prominent and active role in the provision of water and sanitation to the disadvantaged communities.
PROGRESS IN THE ERADICATION OF POVERTY
(Draft Resolution)
Mrs M P THEMBA: Chairperson, I move without notice: That the Council -
(1) notes that the eradication of poverty can only be achieved through an integrated approach that combines programmes targeted at the poor with policies and strategies that meet the basic needs of all people;
(2) recognises that such an integrated approach had been at the centre of the ANC government’s policies since 1994;
(3) further recognises that in the short space of six years the ANC has been able to provide -
(a) a million new houses;
(b) over 500 clinics and free medical care for pregnant women and
children under six;
(c) 24 000 better classrooms;
(d) one million more children in schools;
(e) electricity to 2,5 million houses;
(f) pensions and child welfare grants for all;
(g) tarred roads in former black and rural areas;
(h) clean water to six million people; and
(i) land distribution and over 1,8 million new telephone lines; and
(4) welcomes the commitment by the ANC to speed up the extension of these services to ensure that even more South Africans will soon experience a qualitative change in their lives.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Is there any objection to the motion?
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, may I suggest an amendment?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Suggest the amendment
- let us hear.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I move that before the list of achievements that the hon member gave, we insert ``that the ANC tried but did not succeed’’. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Hon members, we are allowed to differ, but we cannot talk while another member is speaking. Do you agree to the amendment, Mrs Themba?
Mrs M P THEMBA: No, Chairperson.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Is there any objection to the motion?
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: I object, Chairperson.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! The motion is objected to, but it will be printed on the Order Paper.
CONGRATULATIONS ON SPORTING ACHIEVEMENTS
(Draft Resolution) Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council congratulates -
(1) our participants at the Paralympics in Sydney on their splendid haul of medals, thereby bringing pride and glory to the Republic;
(2) the new shooting star emerging in our rugby firmament, Breyton Paulse, who has just been voted the South African Rugby Player of the Year - no mean achievement when considering that he comes from across the tracks; and
(3) the Proteas under the dominance of another batting star Nicky Bojé, master blaster Lance Klusener and, of course, the ever reliable world- class all-rounder Jacques Kallis for their complete annihilation of the much-vaunted ICC World Champions, the Black Caps, the Kiwis of New Zealand.
HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
INCREASE IN CRIME AND INTRODUCTION OF MUNICIPAL POLICE
(Draft Resolution)
Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) during 1999 levels of reported crime increased at a faster rate
than any other year since 1994;
(b) between 1998 and 1999 the number of reported violent crimes
increased by 9,3%, which is more than any other crime category;
(c) between 1994 and 1999 violent crime increased by 21,6%;
(d) according to the HSRC survey data, almost three times as many
South Africans felt unsafe in 1999 compared to 1994 - in 1999
47% of South Africans felt ``unsafe or very unsafe'', up from
16% in 1994; and
(2) in the light of the clear failure by the national Government to fulfil its obligation to all the people of South Africa to provide them with adequate levels of safety and security from criminals, calls on the national Government to make sufficient funding available for local policing initiatives so that municipal police services can be established all over the country, which will be accountable to local governments, trained to SAPS standards, have clear crime- fighting and other performance targets, and be designed to supplement the South African Police Service.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Is there any objection to the motion?
Mr M V MOOSA: An amendment, Chairperson.
Mr T B TAABE: Chairperson, I rise to object to this kind of balderdash …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! That is sufficient. You do not need to substantiate. In the light of the objection the motion may not be proceeded with. The motion without notice will now become notice of a motion.
FOCUS ON THE ELDERLY
(Draft Resolution)
Ms B THOMPSON: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that the Minister of Social Development, Dr Zola Skweyiya,
has visibly put the needs of the elderly as a priority on his
ministerial agenda, by visiting almost all of the provinces
during the public hearings on the elderly, held from May to
August this year;
(2) further notes that the hearings gave older people from most
districts an opportunity to add their voices to the growing
public outcry against the ill-treatment and abuse of older
persons by, amongst others, their children and grandchildren,
supposed care-givers, Government officials and others who are
supposed to look after their interests;
(3) also notes that hundreds of older people in provinces such as
Mpumalanga, through the participation of leaders like King
Mayisha, helped focus Government's attention on the plight of
older people by reminding everyone that old age was a blessing,
especially in these days of the HIV/Aids pandemic which has
drastically affected the life-span of communities; and
(4) supports and encourages the Minister of Social Development in
his efforts to empower women, the elderly, children and the
disabled to know their constitutional rights and to address
their plight in respect of social security and grants.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONGRATULATIONS ON ACTION TAKEN BY PARLIAMENT IN RESPECT OF CORRUPTION
(Draft Resolution)
Ms C BOTHA: Chairperson, I want to tell Mr Sulliman that he can relax. He does not have to object to this motion. I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) commends the admirable action of the Speaker of the National Assembly, Frene Ginwala, and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, Naledi Pandor, who -
(a) chose the difficult route of summarily dismissing two
parliamentary officials for corrupt practices, in the process
overruling the recommendations of a disciplinary committee,
which merely recommended demotion;
(b) publicly confronted a member of Parliament for his abuse of
travel privileges and bringing Parliament into disrepute;
(c) set a precedent for all public representatives on the value of
keeping an independent mind on issues of general morality;
(d) imbued us with courage by their enforcement of appropriate steps
of action; and
(e) reminded us again that the hallmark of leadership is the ability
to take responsibility for one's decisions; and
(2) without detracting from the generality of the above, takes particular notice of the fact that this leadership was exercised by two women.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Is there any objection to the motion?
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, I wish to propose an amendment, and then I will support the motion. I move: That the words be added ``that the DA recognises that the ANC leadership in Parliament fights against corruption, and has done so in these two cases’’.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Hon member, do you agree to the intended amendment?
Ms C BOTHA: Chairperson, I would like to amend the amendment by adding ``it is about time they did so’’. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana) Order! Then the motion is objected to. The motion may not be proceeded with.
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, the motion is supported with my amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): No, she is not agreeing to that amendment. We cannot have amendments after amendments endlessly.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Order! Chairperson, can the person who proposes a motion object to it? The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Well, she has objected. She is the mover of the motion. So the motion is not agreed to. [Interjections.] Are you agreeing to the amendment? [Interjections.] She has objected. She is a member of this Council, entitled to talk to the motion, and she has objected to the amendment. Therefore the motion is not accepted.
Ms C BOTHA: Sorry, Chairperson, but I did not object to my own motion. I added something to the amendment that was proposed. My motion stands.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! I have already given a ruling.
DEATH OF PARKS MANKAHLANA
(Draft Resolution)
Mr T S SETONA: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes - (a) the untimely passing away of Comrade Parks Mankahlana on Thursday, 26 October 2000; and
(b) the heroic and selfless role that he played in the struggle for
the liberation of this country;
(2) recognises the role that Parks played beyond being a presidential spokesperson on various levels and in various capacities, which amongst others include -
(a) leadership in the student movement in the early eighties, in
particular, the Azanian Student Organisation (Azaso) at the
University of Fort Hare;
(b) regional secretary of the UDF in the former Eastern Transvaal
(now Mpumalanga); and
(c) distinguished leadership role in the SA Youth Congress until
1990 where he rose to become a media and publicity secretary of
the ANC Youth League until 1998;
(3) therefore resolves to join the nation in mourning the death of this gallant hero;
(4) expresses its heartfelt condolences to the bereaved family, children and friends; and
(5) regrets the pressure exerted by the media on the family for the disclosure of his illness.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
STATEMENTS BY MR PETER MARAIS
(Draft Resolution)
Ms N D NTWANAMBI: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes the resignation of former New NP MEC Freda Adams from the
Democratic Alliance as a result of derogatory remarks made about
her by the Democratic Alliance mayoral candidate, Peter Marais;
(2) further notes the statements attributed to the DA mayoral
candidate, that white women should not benefit from affirmative
action and that voters should disregard the Constitution in
favour of their religion;
(3) supports the view of the ANC ...
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Hon member, is that matter not sub judice?
Ms N D NTWANAMBI: No, Chairperson.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! It is sub judice, hon member. The matter is pending a decision.
CONDEMNATION OF COUPLE CONVICTED OF CHILD ABUSE
(Draft Resolution)
Prince B Z ZULU: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) expresses its total shock and rejection of a mother and her husband from North West who allowed her daughters, aged 12 and 16, to be prostituted over the years from 1993 to 1998 for as little as R5;
(2) notes that the husband, who was the stepfather, kept a mattress in his office at his work on which he raped an 8-year-old girl;
(3) commends the Pretoria regional court for sentencing the mother to 39 years and the husband to 50 years;
(4) is of the belief that monsters like these have no place in our communities and that they must rot in jail; and
(5) supports the initiative by the SAPS of declaring war against child abusers in this country.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Is there any objection to the motion?
Dr E A CONROY: Chairperson, I move that the words ``for as little as R5’’ be removed, because prostitution is prostitution, whether it is for a R1 million or for R5.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Does the hon member have any objection to that?
Prince B Z ZULU: No, Chairperson.
Amendment agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
Motion, as amended, agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution, namely:
That the Council -
(1) expresses its total shock and rejection of a mother and her husband from North West who allowed her daughters, aged 12 and 16, to be prostituted over the years from 1993 to 1998; (2) notes that the husband, who was the stepfather, kept a mattress in his office at his work on which he raped an 8-year-old girl;
(3) commends the Pretoria Regional Court for sentencing the mother to 39 years and the husband to 50 years;
(4) is of the belief that monsters like these have no place in our communities and that they must rot in jail; and
(5) supports the initiative by the SAPS of declaring war against child abusers in this country.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I want to make a remark, hon members. I notice that our motions are speeches. We will be obliged to set time aside if we use our motions to make speeches. We have been reluctant to rule, because we thought hon members would simply move motions. We will observe the situation, and if this continues, we will be obliged to force members to make their motions shorter.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON
SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS -
RSA/USA EXTRADITION TREATY
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I am informed that the chairperson of that committee, Mr J L Mahlangu, will be making a statement.
Mr J L MAHLANGU: Chairperson, I have been given a speakers’ list according to which I am expected to deal with both Order No 1 and Order No 2. I am not sure whether it is appropriate that I should address this House on the two questions.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! You can address the House on the two questions, but you will still have to come back to the second question.
Mr J L MAHLANGU: Chairperson, I will start with the RSA/USA Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. This treaty between South Africa and the United States is the latest treaty in a series on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters signed by the United States with countries such as Argentina, the Bahamas, Canada, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Panama, the Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.
Mutual legal assistance in criminal matters is a relatively recent development. It seeks to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regulate and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally its justice department, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants and to serve processes.
Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defence must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country, which usually involves letters. It is impossible to appreciate the importance of treaties such as this without understanding the link between the increase in the incidence of crime and our transition to democracy, and the impact of globalisation on crime.
Our transition from apartheid authoritarianism to democracy has opened up our society, and, with factors such as modern transportation and financial infrastructure, inadequate border controls and reprioritisation of resources to address the inequalities of the past, huge gaps have emerged in which criminals, including international organised crime syndicates, can freely operate. Globalisation itself has created the perfect opportunity for criminals to successfully exploit the legal uncertainty brought about by its own processes.
Increasingly, there is a new jurisdiction for both criminals and the police, especially international ones. Criminals depend on their ability to exploit differences in efficiency between jurisdictions, and globalisation has greatly enhanced their prospects of doing so. In many cases, globalisation has helped place the international criminal outside the reach of the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed. For example, in which jurisdiction should an offence be prosecuted when it is committed on the Internet? How does a jurisdiction dismantle activities of an international criminal group when they bank their profits electronically in a tax haven and reside in a jurisdiction in which law enforcement has been weakened by corruption, and do so often under a false name or a falsely purchased passport? The above two examples show the increasingly difficult tasks being faced by law enforcement agencies across the globe in dealing with crime. They also prove how important international co-operation on criminal matters has become. Therefore, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty seeks to formalise and facilitate co-operation between South Africa and the United States on criminal matters. I have no doubt that such mutual legal assistance will greatly enhance the capacity of our police and prosecutorial services, and will serve as a useful tool in completing the criminal cases which, in the past, proved difficult to investigate and prosecute owing to jurisdictional problems.
With regard to the RSA/USA Extradition Treaty between South Africa and the United States, I think it is appropriate to direct the attention of the members to an incident that happened here in Cape Town last year. A certain person who applied for refugee status in our country was given temporary residence status pending the outcome of an application for extradition which was sought by the United States on charges relating to the bombing of the United States embassy in Tanzania. The said person was arrested in South Africa and, after being interrogated by certain officials of the Home Affairs Department, handed over to the United States agents and flown to America. He appeared in court and was informed by the presiding judge that the death penalty was a competent sentence in his case should he be found guilty.
The question raised by this case is: What would have happened to this person had an extradition treaty been in existence at the time between South Africa and the United States? Personally, I think it would have been unlikely that the person would have been handed over had we known that the death penalty could be imposed. This is because the extradition treaty between South Africa and the United States clearly stipulates that extradition may be refused by the requested state if the extradition is sought for an offence which is not punishable by death under the laws of the requested state - in this case, South Africa.
The treaty has certain obligations for the parties. One of the obligations is that the parties agree to extradite to each other, pursuant to the provisions of this treaty, persons whom the authorities in the requesting states have charged with or convicted on an extraditable offence.
We have a range of extraditable offences which I will not refer to. I would like to refer to one, though, in Article 4, which says that extradition shall not be granted for political and military offences. For the purposes of this treaty, some of the cases shall be considered political offences. One of them is murder or other violent crime against a head of state or deputy head of state of the requesting or requested state, or against a member of such a person’s family, an offence for which both the requesting and requested states have the obligation, pursuant to a multilateral international agreement, to extradite the person sought or to submit the case to their respective competent authorities for decision as to prosecution. I now come to murder and any offence involving kidnapping, abduction and so on.
Notwithstanding rule 10(2), extradition shall not be granted if the executive authority of the requested state determines that there are substantial grounds for believing that the request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s gender, race, religion, nationality or political opinion. The executive authorities of the requested state shall refuse extradition for offences under military laws that are not offences under ordinary criminal laws.
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs has dealt with the treaties, and all the parties have agreed to support the treaties. I therefore move that the House adopt the treaty. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Report adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - RSA/USA MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! The address just delivered by the chairperson of the committee, Mr Mahlangu, is equally applicable in this case.
Debate concluded.
Report adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I take this opportunity to welcome the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development back to this House and call upon her to address us.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, colleagues and comrades, it is always a pleasure to be in this House, and it brings back some good memories.
South Africa is one of the first countries in the world to bring this internationally inspired cross-border legal mechanism into operation. In an era of rampant globalisation, our pursuit of good governance …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! There is too much noise, hon members. Could you proceed, hon Minister. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER: My comrades will always be my comrades, hon member. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Order! Could you proceed, hon Deputy Minister.
The DEPUTY MINISTER: We will stick to it.
In an era of rampant globalisation, our pursuit of good governance necessitates the formulation of transnational, legal and administrative instruments to regulate cross-border trade and investment, and the many risks that are associated with these activities.
The Cross-Border Insolvency Bill emanates from a UN initiative that envisaged the strengthening of co-operation between competent authorities of countries implicated in the winding up of the affairs of judgment debtors with international assets and affairs. The adoption of this legislation is another clear signal that we believe in international co- operation and the harmonisation of legislation where public interests are at stake.
The Bill authorises a trustee, liquidator, judicial manager, curator of an institution, or receiver, to act in a foreign state in respect of proceedings under the law of the Republic of South Africa relating to insolvency, as applicable by the foreign law.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution, co-sponsored by the Republic of South Africa on 15 December 1997, recommending that member states review their legislation on cross-border insolvency. By way of progress, the international body had advanced a so-called model law on cross-border insolvency of the UN Commission on International Trade Law, or Uncitral. In our own legislative process we relied on the recommendations of the SA Law Commission, which considered the proposed enactment of the international framework from a South African law perspective.
The purpose of the prototype legislation is to promote a harmonised framework of modern and fair legislation for cases where an insolvent debtor has assets in more than one state. The Bill responds to the need for greater legal certainty at a time when more and more entrepreneurs and some racketeers are spreading their assets and investments across international borders.
The preamble of the Bill further highlights the need for an effective mechanism to deal with cases of cross-border insolvency so as, firstly, to secure fair and efficient administration of cross-border insolvencies that will protect the interests of all creditors and other interested persons, including the debtor; secondly, to secure the protection and maximisation of the value of the debtor’s assets; and, thirdly, to facilitate the rescue of financially troubled businesses, thereby protecting investment and preserving employment.
I encourage all members of the House to familiarise themselves with the extensively developed background introduction as detailed in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill. The South African legal framework before us today is therefore based on the UN’s model law. However, important amendments and additions were made to comply with South African constitutional requirements and our own special needs. The rationale for the development of the Bill is another indicator of this country’s role as a key player in international efforts to harmonise legal mechanisms and instruments in this arena. It is also a clear demonstration of our commitment to join the international community in clamping down on country-hopping corporate delinquents and insolvents.
I would like to thank the select committee and its chairperson, Comrade Mahlangu - should the member object - for their rigorous scrutiny of this piece of legislation and for the dedication and energy they have devoted to processing this Bill. It is also my pleasure to thank the dedicated officials from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development who developed and drafted the legislation. Both Mr Johan Labuschagne from the legislation directorate and Mr Tienie Cronje from the SA Law Commission were instrumental in bringing the Bill to Parliament in an efficient and speedy manner. [Applause.] I thank them for their co-operation.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! That statement by the hon the Deputy Minister was the only speech on this Bill. Debate concluded.
Declaration of vote:
Mr J L MAHLANGU: Chairperson, we have made certain recommendations with regard to one clause in the Bill and we have given certain instructions to the department, and we hope to get an appropriate response within the period determined by the resolution. But there is general support from all political parties.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I have been informed that Orders No 4 up to 10, I think, will be debated simultaneously. Because the Rules require that when we debate we must relate to the matters under discussion, I will ask the Secretary to read all Orders from 4 up to 10, but we will vote per Order after members have debated.
COUNCIL FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT BILL
ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION BILL
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION BILL
ENGINEERING PROFESSION BILL
PROPERTY VALUERS PROFESSION BILL
PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONS BILL
QUANTITY SURVEYING PROFESSION BILL
(Consideration of Bills and of Reports thereon)
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the hon the Minister of Public Works and call upon him to address the House.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Chairperson, hon members and comrades, today’s assembly of the National Council of Provinces will mark a turning point in the history and development of the built environment professions. It marks both the end of a policy-making process and the beginning of a process to retool the professions.
The process started in 1994 with the appointment of a built environment forum to review the regulation of the professions that are active within the built environment. The legislation before us embodies all the work that has flowed from the initial appointment. The passage of this historic legislation will enable us to mobilise the significant resources embodied within our professions, in order to meet the challenges of our emerging democracy and infrastructure delivery in all our provinces. This is particularly important in view of Government’s commitment to increased funding for both infrastructure and maintenance, a commitment confirmed by the R8 billion allocation announced by my colleague the Minister of Finance in his Budget Review on Monday.
The review undertaken by the built environment forum identified a number of deficiencies in the existing regulation. The seven Bills before the House aim to overcome these deficiencies, create a framework for the ongoing transformation and development of the professions and maximise the contribution of the professions to the social and economic challenges that are at the core of Government’s delivery and development commitment.
The first Bill establishes an overarching Council for the Built Environment in order to ensure co-ordination with Government and between the different professions. Four of the Bills re-enact the laws on the existing professional councils for engineers, architects, quantity surveyors and property valuers, all of which are currently administered by the Department of Public Works. The remaining two Bills establish new councils for two professions, that is project and construction management and landscape architects.
Professional expertise in our country is a national asset and should be managed as a scarce resource of high value. The intrinsic value of the built environment professions lies in their essential role and function in social and economic development. The enabling legislation before members today seeks to promote this potential and unlock the creativity of our professions for the improvement of the quality of life of all South Africans. Members should pardon my voice, I am in trouble today.
Previous government policy limited the role of the professions to the service of an elite and subordinated it to the agenda of segregation that has degraded our built environment, an environment which today is a physical barrier to our objective of nation-building. In a society in which blacks were to remain poor and subordinate, there was never a need to consider access by the majority of the population to basic infrastructure, let alone to adequate professional services.
Bantu education and job reservation also ensured that blacks would never enter professions such as architecture and engineering, let alone project management. It is in this context that all key public and private sector stakeholders came together in the built environment forum in order to oversee and engage in a comprehensive study called the Investigation into the Statutory Regulation of the Professions Active in the Built Environment in South Africa. This report, commissioned by the Department of Public Works and undertaken by the Human Sciences Research Council, informed the policy that underpins our new legislation and that has engaged the full participation of stakeholders. Because of the significance of the professions as an essential asset in our development agenda, it is important that I highlight the extent of our investigation and the care that we have taken in finalising Government policy and draft legislation.
Invitations for submissions were sent to 228 stakeholder organisations. A total of 88 submissions were received and analysed. Requests for information were sent to 116 organisations in 23 countries. An analysis of preliminary results was presented and debated at five meetings of the forum. With regard to policy and draft legislation, the debates of the forum informed the final report and provided the basis for the policy framework that was approved by all key stakeholders last year.
The draft Bills were individually discussed with the relevant professions. In July 1999 we published the policy framework and the draft legislation for public comment. Public hearings were conducted and the constructive co- operation of all political parties made it possible for the portfolio committee and the select committee of the NCOP to effect meaningful improvements to the Bills. This enabled the National Assembly to approve the legislation on 29 September this year.
I will now address the intentions of the 7 Bills, the shortcomings they aim to overcome and the principles that have guided the finalisation of this legislation.
Some of the shortcomings in the inherited regulatory system of the past included the following: the independent and isolated operation of the existing councils for the professions; inconsistencies in the execution of the core functions of the different statutory councils; lack of proper co- ordination between the different professions with respect to national development priorities; insufficient and, in some cases, no recognition of different categories of professions; inability to respond to innovation and to recognise new professions; exclusive governance by registered professionals as manifested in their representation on the council; and lack of transparency, particularly in regard to the disciplinary procedures against registered professionals.
This enabling legislation before the House addresses these shortcomings while maintaining the strength of the existing legislation. It creates a framework for the ongoing transformation and development of the professions and structured co-ordination and improved accountability to the public. The new Council for the Built Environment will advise Government on matters impacting on the built environment as a whole, and will act as a vehicle of communication between Government and the professions. It will enable the recognition of new professions and promote registration of different categories within a profession, effectively opening up the professions to wider access. It will also ensure consistent application by the different councils of policy and principles in relation to matters that they already regulate, such as identification of work that requires the competence of a specific profession and the ensuring professional standards, health and safety and the protection of the public; accreditation of professional training programmes and institutions; registration of professionals; establishment of a code of conduct and disciplinary procedures for members of the respective professions; and, finally, establishment of guidelines on appropriate fee structures.
It will further promote a range of new priorities, and will also act as an appeal body for affected professionals, as well as for aggrieved members of the public. The councils for each of the six professions will register professionals in a manner that promotes technical and ethical standards, competence and performance, including the principle of continual professional development.
They will promote increased recognition of our professions, regionally and internationally. In keeping with the precepts of our democracy, the need for transparency and for people-centred development, the new legislation opens up the professions to the public. It promotes partnership through representation by the professions, the state and the public on the principle of a 60:20 proportional representation. It further requires representation in terms of race, gender, disability and regional distribution.
Recognition of the different categories of the professions will enable greater access to professional service by the public. Linked to the required recognition of prior learning, the legislation creates new opportunities for access and career path development within each profession. In response to the request of certain of the professions, we have moved boldly to establish new councils for landscape architects, as well as for project and construction management. We are convinced that this will indeed promote enhanced delivery, promote value for money for public and private sector clients and promote our socioeconomic objectives.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Select Committee on Public Services, the department’s drafting team, and all the stakeholders, for bringing to fruition this exciting product embodied in this legislation before us. Their effort has ensured that the Bills before the House will genuinely promote the growth and development of the built environment professions to the benefit of all South Africans. [Applause.]
Chief M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, it is with pride and joy that I inform this House that the select committee unanimously supported the passage of these Bills, which we have named the ``Magnificent Seven’’. [Laughter.]
We wish to congratulate the hon the Minister and her department on the thoroughness with which the draft Bills were prepared. If a leader demonstrates competency, genuine concern for others and is of admirable character, people will follow. I say well done to the hon the Minister.
The select committee has also reviewed the amendments introduced by the portfolio committee after public hearings, and is of the view that these amendments strengthen the spirit and effectiveness of the legislation. The ``Magnificent Seven’’ Bills provide an integrated framework for the regulation of the built environment professions, and for advancing their role in the delivery of basic infrastructure to South Africa’s majority population. Our people have been longing for such legislation. It is, therefore, true that to understand one’s parents’ love, one should have one’s own child. [Laughter.]
What does the Council for the Built Environment Bill entail? This piece of legislation recognises the fact that our country produces professionals of the highest calibre, who are internationally recognised and competitive. It will ensure that these standards and competitiveness are further sharpened. There is a saying which goes: ``Do not pray unless you believe God will answer.’’ This piece of legislation proves that our people’s prayers have been answered.
The new councils for the various professions must address the responsibility of the professions to society. Today our country needs built environment professionals of outstanding social conscience to creatively apply their technical and management skills to the task of transforming the built environment in South African society.
Let us remind ourselves of some of the RDP principles that the new legislation will promote. Yes, it is true, great minds have purpose, while others have wishes. [Laughter.] This is because in the race to be better or the best one must not forget to enjoy the journey.
These principles emphasise specifically the need for greater accessibility to the professions. The majority of our people have not been able to access some of these professions. By recognising and promoting different categories of professional competence, the new legislation will enable access to affordable services. Another function of this Council for the Built Environment will be to support an integrated and sustainable approach to development by the professions.
The legislation before us also includes the criteria for representation on the council which will reflect gender, race and disability. The role of the Council for the Built Environment must not be viewed as merely one of co- ordination. It must provide strategic leadership to all the councils for the built environment professions. No one can make one feel inferior without one’s consent.
The Council for the Built Environment will, as said by the hon the Minister, ensure uniform application of all policy by the various councils, promote continual development of professions and their images, promote improved public protection, recognise new professions and promote national objectives.
The ``Magnificent Seven’’ Bills promote transparency and accountability, high technical and moral standards, health, safety and environmental protection. They provide a framework within which the professions can maximise their role in social and economic development activity, which must be addressed. They will also deal with the legacy of a built environment that has been grossly distorted by the planning of the previous regime.
I am able to say everything I have just said because of the dedication and preparedness of my colleagues, who are the select committee members. I would like to thank them, because they pushed so hard for us to be where we are today. As we all know, business is like a wheelbarrow - nothing ever happens until one starts pushing. [Laughter.] They are not like critics who know the way but cannot drive.
I have said enough. It is now time for me to sit down and listen, because big, mature and seasoned people monopolise the listening, while small and inexperienced people monopolise the talking.
I say well done to the hon the Minister. We support the Bill. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! The next member to speak is Dr P J C Nel. I do not know whether he is a ``small’’ member to be listened to. The floor is his.
Dr P J C NEL: Mnr die Voorsitter, ons het hier te doen met twee stelle wetsontwerpe wat die Nuwe NP in beginsel steun. Die eerste sluit wetsontwerp 16B in, wat dit ten doel het om die Raad vir die Bouomgewing in plek te stel om sodoende te verseker dat die toepassing van die beleid op ‘n gelyke basis regdeur die verskillende professies, wat gesamentlik ‘n belangrike bydrae lewer in die bouomgewing, wel geskied.
Die tweede stel wetsontwerpe het dit ten doel om die verskillende beroepe te orden deur die instelling van rade vir die onderskeie beroepe. So maak dit ook onder andere voorsiening vir die instelling van ‘n raad vir die projek- en konstruksiebestuursbedryf. Verskillende instansies het die openbare verhore bygewoon en skriftelike bydraes gelewer. Sommige het sinvolle wysigings voorgestel, veral met betrekking tot die onderskeie professies. So byvoorbeeld het die Raad vir Ingenieurs van Suid-Afrika en die SA Instituut van Siviele Ingenieurs hulle kommer uitgespreek oor die vereiste in die wetsontwerp dat hul lede nou van vooraf moet registreer as projekbestuurders, en dit wel nadat bewys gelewer is van bekwaamheid en ondervinding.
Hulle is van mening dat dit nie ‘n beroep op sy eie is nie en dat die projek- en konstruksiebestuur deel uitmaak van die funksies wat ingenieurs uitoefen en dat hulle wel bekwaam is om dit te doen. Die opleiding van ‘n ingenieur behels ‘n sewe jaar lange kursus op universiteit en drie jaar praktiese opleiding. Projek- en konstruksiebestuur maak ‘n integrale deel uit van die voorgraadse studies in die vierde studiejaar. Dit is ‘n vereiste dat gegradueerde ingenieurs eers praktiese ervaring van projekbestuur moet opdoen voordat hulle mag registreer.
Vergelyk ‘n mens dit met 50 diplomakursusse vir projekbestuurders wat deur sekere instansies aangebied word en geadverteer word in sekere tydskrifte, dan kan ‘n mens nie anders nie as om saam te stem met die SA Raad vir Ingenieurswese dat die instelling van hierdie spesifieke raad vir hierdie professie prematuur is. Die nuwe NP steun dus die twee stelle wetsontwerpe, maar ons versoek die Minister om weer die betrokke professies te raadpleeg alvorens hierdie spesifieke raad ingestel word. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr P J C NEL: Mr Chairman, we are dealing here with two sets of Bills that the NP supports in principle. The first set includes Bill 16B, which has as its objective to establish the Council for the Built Environment in order to ensure that the application of the policy in fact takes place on an equal basis throughout the various professions, which collectively make an important contribution to the built environment.
The second set of Bills has as objective to order the various professions by introducing councils for the respective professions. It also provides, inter alia, for the introduction of a council for the project and construction management industry.
Various institutions attended the public hearings and made written contributions. Some proposed meaningful amendments relating specifically to the various professions. The Engineering Council of South Africa and the SA Institute of Civil Engineers conveyed their concern about the requirement in the Bill that their members must now register them as project managers and in fact after providing proof of competence and experience.
They are of the view that it is not an independent profession and that project and construction management comprise part of the functions that engineers perform and that they are competent to do so. The training of an engineer entails a seven-year university course and three years of practical training. Project and construction management forms an integral part of fourth-year undergraduate studies. It is a requirement that graduate engineers must first acquire practical experience of project management before they may register.
When one compares this with the 50 diploma courses for project managers that are offered by certain institutions and that are advertised in certain magazines one cannot but agree with the Engineering Council of South Africa that the introduction of this specific council for this profession is premature. The New NP therefore supports the two sets of Bills, but we request the Minister to consult the professions again before establishing this specific council. [Applause.]]
Mr A MARAIS: Chairperson, hon Minister, colleagues, the establishment of the SA Council for the Project and Construction Management Professions, like all other councils in this cluster, is a concerted undertaking to ensure that South African professionals become worthy and competitive participants in the built environment in Africa and globally.
Its prime objective is to democratically entrench the principles of substantive equality. In other words, its most profound accomplishment is that it obliterates exclusionism. Hence indigenous design coupled with environmental protection are built-in requirements.
The Bill also promotes a certain type of versatility to the extent that in an ever-changing environment new disciplines are assimilated without much hassle. The Bill goes on to promote the principles of self-regulation to the extent that it provides for greater dialogue between the various professions, the public, the Government and the rest of the world. As long as education remains a central issue, its legitimacy cannot be disputed.
This Bill is an embodiment of the principles and objectives of the African Renaissance, ensuring that we become a winning nation, not only continentally, but also globally. The ANC supports the Bill.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS: Chairperson, I want to thank the hon members for their support for this particular Bill. I want to assure the hon member of the New NP that it has always been the policy of our department to consult broadly, as we did when we dealt with the Bill. We want to ensure that even as we look for board members, we look at a wide spectrum of people in order to make the board as inclusive as possible.
But experience has shown clearly that, even if people are qualified engineers, there is a need now to have people who in their own right are project managers. This response shows clearly that hon members are moving with the times and that they are all caught up in the spirit of democracy prevailing in the country. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Council for the Built Environment Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
Architectural Profession Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
Landscape Architectural Profession Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
Engineering Profession Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
Property Valuers Profession Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
Project and Construction Management Professions Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
Quantity Surveying Profession Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS - ABUJA TREATY
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): I take this opportunity to welcome the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in our midst and call upon her to address this House.
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairperson, hon members of the NCOP, it is indeed a privilege for me to participate in this discussion this afternoon.
It is a privilege indeed because I think we live in a very interesting period in which very important history is being made on our continent. It all started with those brave Africans who gathered in London in 1900 for the historic Pan-African Congress to discuss the question of racism and racial discrimination. Among other issues considered by the conference was the need for unity and solidarity amongst the African people.
As history would have it, the Europeans decided at the Berlin Conference to slice Africa amongst themselves in order to meet their insatiable lust for economic expansion. The African people, in pursuit of their right to determine their destiny, successfully resisted this, and indeed we saw struggles for decolonisation in Africa.
When Kwame Nkrumah, one of the finest sons of this continent, convened the All-Africa People’s Congress in Ghana, the foundation laid in London began to take root. The yearning of the African people for unity and for the economic integration of the continent resonated in the Monrovia Conference in the late 1960s, which eventually led to the epoch-making Extraordinary Summit of the Organisation of African Unity in 1980 that adopted the Lagos Plan of Action, which articulated the concept of an African economic community.
Of course the African continent could not move much further in this regard until the whole continent was liberated. Therefore, until southern Africa, and South Africa in particular, was liberated, progress was not very great because a lot of energy and resources were used and sacrifices made to support our struggle. Of course, central to all these struggles, the people of Africa were determined to forge the unity, solidarity and economic integration of the continent. Indeed, that is what the Abuja Treaty is about. African leaders had recognised that co-operation and integration among African countries in the economic, social and cultural fields are indispensable to the accelerated transformation and sustainable development of the African continent.
In this connection, regional integration has long been regarded by African policy-makers as being a highly desirable objective. Their appeal for regional integration derives from the understanding that in a globalised world no country can succeed on its own. In fact, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, speaking at the Millennium Summit, said that the train of globalisation does not stop at all stations, it only stops at those stations with high platforms. The high platform is determined by the infrastructure, by the skilled human resources and by the technology of that country. Therefore those countries that do not have the necessary platform for globalisation will be left behind. The African continent does not want to be left behind and should not be left behind.
As we indicated above, the adoption of the Lagos Plan of Action is a major step towards the goal of integration. The commitments in the plan and in the Final Act of Lagos are translated into concrete form in the Abuja Treaty.
The aim of the Abuja Treaty is to establish an African economic community to promote economic, social and cultural development as well as African economic integration in order to increase self-sufficiency and indigenous development and to create a framework for the development and mobilisation of human resources on the continent.
In giving expression to integration, the continent was cut up into different regional economic blocs. These regions are the Arab Maghreb Union, which covers North Africa; the Economic Community of Central African States, which covers, as its name says, Central Africa; Comesa, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa; the Southern African Development Community, or SADC, to which we belong; and Ecowas, which is the Economic Community of West African States. These are seen as building-blocks towards the integration of the continent.
The Abuja Treaty had six different stages for implementation and it was envisaged that this would take 34 years. I will not go into the stages. I am sure hon members all studied them as they were looking at the Abuja Treaty itself. However, what has happened is that as Africa itself was looking at gearing the African continent both for the renaissance and for the 21st century, it decided that these stages should be shortened as this was going to take too long and therefore the Constitutive Act, which I am sure this House will be debating, for the formation of the African Union is a way of trying to shorten the stages of the Abuja Treaty.
It is also combining the Organisation of African Unity with the Abuja Treaty so that they can be one organisation that deals with all the economic and political matters of the continent. Therefore the Abuja Treaty, in my view, is a very important treaty if we are to succeed in making the 21st century the African century.
However, there are those among us South Africans who think South Africa can remain an island of prosperity and are willing to ignore the rest of our continent. Those Afro-sceptics are making a very big mistake. Unfortunately some of them live amongst us in our country. They declare with a lot of arrogance that Africa is a continent full of conflicts and therefore they want to go it alone. I would like to say that South Africa cannot succeed in reaching its full potential if the continent itself does not reach its full potential.
I think hon members have a very big responsibility as we are all willing midwives of this new and exciting process in the history of the continent. To quote President Mbeki, ``I would like to make bold to say that the African Renaissance is not just a dream whose realisation lies in some dim and distant future.’’ Let those who have eyes see, for the rebirth of the continent is beckoning. Despite some minor setbacks, the continent is on the march. If there is any need for evidence of the renewal of the continent, it is amply demonstrated in these gallant acts.
In conclusion, it is my fervent hope that hon members will take with both hands this opportunity to accelerate the process of reclaiming our history, our culture and our heritage so as to challenge stereotypes and distortions of Africa as a hapless and dark continent from which nothing great comes. I wish to urge the NCOP to finalise the ratification process of the treaty by voting in favour. [Applause.]
Ms Q D MAHLANGU: Chairperson, Minister of Foreign Affairs, I think the treaty we are ratifying today, as the Council, is very important to South Africa and, particularly, to the continent as a whole. I am just going to deal with one or two of the objectives as outlined in the treaty. One of them is to co-ordinate and harmonise the policies between the existing and future regional economic communities for the gradual attainment of the objective of the union, the objective being to advance the development of the continent by promoting research in all fields, particularly in science and technology.
I am referring to these two objectives because our continent has particular challenges. Many governments on our continent have serious debt problems, and their campaigns to be relieved of those difficulties are met with complicated procedures. Therefore, in the co-ordination and harmonisation process, we shall have to deal with these difficult circumstances. Again, the fact that some regions are more advanced than others on the continent also poses a serious challenge, but I think it is an initiative worth putting effort into. As the Minister has indicated, this treaty will be realised in the long term, and we dare not fail to rise to the challenge of integrating our continent as a whole.
As we move forward we have to be very careful that every country which is part of this treaty contributes equally, and also that South Africa, as we have demanded from time to time, leads this continent. I do not think we should shy away from that responsibility. This treaty, in my view, will help Africans, in particular, to eliminate some of the elements around xenophobia, because the treaty is very comprehensive in its approach. It deals with culture and every other element that we can think of. I think all the visions and issues that are espoused in this document should be supported. And, I think, improvements are going to be made as we proceed with the treaty, even for those who are sceptical of the treaty at the moment as their issues can be accommodated in future.
I think there are things we are going to learn. We can learn from the EU experience when they established their own union. I do not think we can make the effort, then wait for the process to stall us. We have to continue, because we dare not fail all Africans on this continent. [Applause.]
Dr E A CONROY: Mnr die Voorsitter, minister Dlamini-Zuma en kollegas, die verdrag wat die totstandkoming van ‘n ekonomiese gemeenskap in Afrika moontlik maak - die Abuja-verdrag, soos dit algemeen bekend staan - is reeds op 3 Junie 1991 aanvaar en het op 12 Mei 1994 in werking getree.
Dié verdrag lê die grondslag vir die uiteindelike skepping van ‘n Afrika- gemeenskapsmark waardeur die aktiwiteite van die bestaande en toekomstige streekekonomiese gemeenskappe in Afrika oor ‘n tydperk van 34 jaar progressief in ‘n geleidelike proses van samewerking en harmonisering geïntegreer sal word.
Dit sal onder andere die volgende bevorder: die skepping en uitbouing van streek ekonomiese gemeenskappe, byvoorbeeld die Suider-Afrikaanse Ontwikkelingsgemeenskap of SAOG; die stabilisering en harmonisering van tarief- en ander versperrings op die gebied van streekhandel; die sektorale integrasie op veral landbou-, finansiële, vervoer- en kommunikasiegebied; die stigting van ‘n vryhandelsarea en ‘n gemeenskapsmark; die aanvaarding van beleidseenvormigheid asook die skepping van ‘n sentrale bank, en ‘n enkele Afrika-geldeenheid en ‘n monetêre unie in Afrika, en uiteindelik, die verkiesing van ‘n eerste pan-Afrikaanse parlement.
Suid-Afrika se toetrede tot die verdrag en lidmaatskap van die ekonomiese gemeenskap in Afrika is reeds in 1997 deur die Kabinet goedgekeur, maar dit is nog nie bekragtig nie. Suid-Afrika sal nie die ekonomiese implikasies van die verdrag kan vryspring nie, en indien ons hoegenaamd seggenskap en ‘n invloed wil hê en ‘n belangrike rol in die toekomstige ekonomiese en finansiële ontwikkeling van Afrika wil speel, is dit noodsaaklik dat ons wel die verdrag bekragtig.
Die Nuwe NP het aanvanklik in die Gekose Komitee oor Ekonomiese Sake buite stemming gebly aangesien daar in daardie stadium onduidelikheid was of alle wetgewing waarvoor ‘n bekragtiging nodig is of mag wees, in plek was. Duidelikheid oor hierdie aspek is egter intussen verkry, en ek kon dus die bekragtiging in die Gekose Komitee oor Ekonomiese Sake steun.
Ekonomiese ontwikkeling is wat Afrika nou nodig het. Suid-Afrika is die ekonomiese en finansiële hartklop van Afrika, en kan en mag nie sy deurslaggewende rol in die toekomstige ontwikkeling van hierdie vasteland misgun word nie. Terwyl hierdie die eerste stap is om Afrika binne die konteks van globalisering relevant te maak, kan ons nie toelaat dat Suid- Afrika gemarginaliseer word nie, en daarom steun die Nuwe NP die bekragtiging van die Abuja-verdrag heelhartig. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr E A CONROY: Mr Chairperson, Minister Dlamini-Zuma and colleagues, the treaty which facilitates the establishment of an economic community in Africa - the Abuja Treaty, as it is generally known - was already adopted on 3 June 1991 and came into effect on 12 May 1994.
This treaty lays the foundation for the eventual creation of an African community market by way of which the activities of the existing and future regional economic communities in Africa will progressively be integrated in a gradual process of co-operation and harmonisation over a period of 34 years.
This will promote the following, inter alia: the creation and extension of regional economic communities, for example the Southern African Development Community or SADC; the stabilisation and harmonisation of tariff and other barriers in the area of regional trade; sectoral integration, particularly in the areas of agriculture, finance, transport and communication; the establishment of a free-trade area and a community market; adoption of policy uniformity as well as the creation of a central bank, a single African monetary unit and a monetary union in Africa, and eventually, the election of a first pan-African parliament.
South Africa’s accedence to the treaty and membership of the economic community in Africa was already approved by the Cabinet in 1997, but has not yet been ratified. South Africa will not be able to evade the economic implications of the treaty, and it is essential that we ratify the treaty if we wish to have any input and influence and want to play an important role in the future economic and financial development of Africa.
The New NP initially abstained from voting in the Select Committee on Economic Affairs because at that stage there was uncertainty as to whether all legislation for which a ratification is necessary or allowed was in place. Clarity on this aspect has, however, been obtained in the meantime and I could therefore support the ratification in the Select Committee on Economic Affairs.
Economic development is what Africa needs now. South Africa is the economic and financial heartbeat of Africa, and can and may not be denied its decisive role in the future development of this continent. While this is the first step to make Africa relevant within the context of globalisation, we cannot allow South Africa to be marginalised, and the New NP therefore wholeheartedly supports the ratification of the Abuja Treaty.]
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, Minister, we are not against the principle of the Abuja Treaty, or even some of the noble objectives which are set out in that treaty. We certainly do not want to be included amongst those who want to go it alone in Africa. We see a destiny and a new beginning in Africa with the advent of a democratic South Africa. I want to tell the Minister that the trouble for us and, I understand, for his department also, if I may say so, is that the agreement starts with the end and not with the beginning. We have problems with the content, not the vision of the treaty.
The Government and his department have done a fine job with a whole raft of treaties and agreements over the past years. Today we have ratified three fine agreements. The recent EU agreement and the SADC agreement are also excellent examples in the interests of our country, region and continent. The words, the concepts and the vision in all those agreements are all real, beneficial, forward-looking and concrete. Unhappily, the Abuja Treaty does not have these merits. It is deeply flawed, and, we believe, legally flawed. Its objectives are incapable of being achieved within the timeframes set out. The treaty could have far-reaching implications, in our view, for the SADC, the GATT, the EU and the Southern African Customs Union.
Even if the Government recognises that the only merit for us entering the agreement - I have heard this argument and understand it - is to get into the debate and therefore to influence things, then I accept that as an argument. But, for us, it raises a moral problem. Does one sign agreements that one knows are flawed in the first place, simply in order to get into a debate? Now, after improper and insufficient consultation, the Government, in our view, wants to railroad this Parliament into ratifying a document it knows itself is in many respects impossible, certainly within the timeframes it purports to set out.
Africa wants a new beginning. I share that enthusiasm and vision with the Minister. We want a better future. But we will not achieve a better future if we do not lead by democratic example and if we compound the errors of the past. For us, words must have meaning. I want to say to the Minister that it is surely not beyond our wit to negotiate an arrangement without threatening the consensus of constitutional values upon which South Africa stands and which herald a new departure on a journey of hope for Africa.
South Africa runs the real risk of taking on more than it can chew. I would ask the Minister, if he would like to tell us, what the cost implications of this treaty are for South Africa.
Our colleague Mahlangu mentioned the EU. Well, from the war to the Treaty of Rome, it was 40 years of intensive negotiations, and then it took another 40 years before the thing grew. Even now they cannot find each other and there are arguments about the European Parliament. [Interjections.] For us to leap in at the end is, we think, quite wrong. [Time expired.]
Mr J L THERON: Chairperson, at the outset I want to clearly indicate that the DP and the DA fully support the ratification of the Abuja Treaty. The Abuja Treaty of 3 June 1991, together with the Algiers summit of July 1999 and the Sirte summit of September 1999, has far-reaching financial and legislative implications for South Africa. The importance of the Abuja Treaty for South Africa cannot be overstressed, and very important planning, decision-making and legislation will have to follow.
The objectives of the Abuja Treaty clearly indicate the far-reaching and important implications:
(a) To promote economic, social and cultural development and the integration of African economies …
(b) To establish, on a continental scale, a framework for the development, mobilisation and utilisation of the human and material resources of Africa in order to achieve self-reliant development;
(c) To promote co-operation in all fields of human endeavour in order to raise the standard of living of African peoples, and maintain and enhance economic stability, foster close and peaceful relations among member states and contribute to the progress, development and economic integration of the continent; and,
(d) To co-ordinate and harmonise policies among existing and future economic communities in order to foster the gradual establishment of the community.
These are very important objectives, and I think we can all subscribe to them.
If one also analyses the stages of implementation of the Abuja Treaty, important consequences follow. The stages are as follows: stage 1, strengthening and creating regional economic communities, the RECs, such as SADC and Comesa, within the first five years; stage 2, stabilisation of tariff and other barriers to regional trade and sectorial integration; stage 3, the establishment of a free-trade area, after another 10 years; stage 4, harmonisation of tariff and nontariff systems, after another two years; stage 5, establishment of a common market and the adoption of common policies, after another four years; and, stage 6, the integration of all sectors, establishment of a central bank and a single African currency, setting up an African monetary union and creating and electing the first Pan-African Parliament.
The Sirte summit moved all these important consequences closer, and therefore underlines their importance.
Let me summarise the most important decisions to be made: the elimination of trade barriers, the establishment of a free-trade area and the establishment of a common market, a single African central bank, single African currency, single African monetary union and the Pan-African Parliament.
Die vraag is natuurlik nou of Suid-Afrika werklik die gevolge van al hierdie implikasies van die Abuja-verdrag wil dra. Is ‘n enkele geldeenheid werklik prakties? Soek ons een sentrale bank? Wil ons een geïntegreerde parlement hê? Wat beteken dit vir ons soewereiniteit? Wat duidelik hier noodsaaklik is, is vir Suid-Afrika om leiding te neem en duidelike rigting aan te dui.
Daarom moet ons so gou as moontlik deel word van die onderhandelings. Die vraag moet egter gevra word of ons hierdie leiding en rigting kan verskaf. As ons in die onlangse verlede terugkyk na die Zimbabwe-debakel en die leiding wat daar verskaf is, en na die hele fiasko omtrent die MIV/vigspandemie, dan moet ‘n mens wonder.
Hierdie swak leiding en verkeerde interpretasie en rigtinggewing het Suid- Afrika internasionaal onberekenbare skade berokken. Dit is waarom daar so min vertroue in die land is en waarom geen noemenswaardige investering volg nie. Dit is natuurlik ook van die belangrike redes waarom Suid-Afrika se ekonomie nie genoegsaam groei en genoeg werkgeleenthede skep nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The question now, of course, is whether South Africa really wants to bear the consequences of all these implications of the Abuja Treaty. Is a single monetary unit really practical? Do we want one central bank? Do we want one integrated parliament? What does this mean as far as our sovereignty is concerned? What is clearly essential here is for South Africa to take the lead and to provide clear direction.
For this reason we must take part in the negotiations as soon as possible. The question that must be asked, however, is whether we are able to provide this leadership and direction. When one looks back, in the recent past, to the Zimbabwe debacle and the leadership that was provided there, and to the whole fiasco surrounding the HIV/AIDS pandemic, one wonders.
This poor leadership and incorrect interpretation and direction have caused South Africa incalculable harm internationally. That is why there is so little confidence in the country and why no investment of any significance is forthcoming. This is naturally also one of the important reasons why the South African economy is not showing satisfactory growth and creating sufficient job opportunities.]
In conclusion, I want to quote from the latest Leadership magazine, the November 2000 edition. Hopefully most of our members are getting the magazine and are reading it. Russell Loubser, the Executive President of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange says the following, and I quote:
To stop major companies taking their listing to new shores, the JSE must become competitive or align with other bourses.
I quote again:
Traditional stock exchanges will have to adapt or die. The JSE appears to be moving in the right direction.
With globalisation and the Abuja Treaty, we will have to become competitive and we will have to adapt or die. With the opportunities of the Abuja Treaty, we will have to give leadership and indicate the right direction.
The question thus is: Will the Minister and the executive lead us in the right direction at the right pace? [Interjections.] I want to urge the Minister and the executive to keep us timeously informed about the very important legislation that will have to follow and the important decisions on the Abuja Treaty. They should please give Parliament timeous warnings to play its critical role in the legislation and decisions. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, when one has caged an animal, and the animal has been in the cage for a long, long time, in a small place with bars and so forth, when one opens the door to that cage it takes a while for that animal to realise that freedom can be sweet and that with freedom comes opportunity. [Interjections.] Unfortunately - I do not necessarily want to attack the DP or the ACDP and the speeches that they have made here today - some of these political parties just do not see the big picture. They see the walls of the cage, not the environment around the cage.
Let me explain why I am saying this. One of the biggest problems with the way in which we are to deal with the African question and the African continent - one of the biggest issues that our forefathers such as Kwame Nkrumah and even our own comrade Nelson Mandela have tried to put forward that would be acceptable to all of us Africans, black and white - is that we need to develop an African pride. We need to make sure that the spices that we get from India are respected as much as the roots that we have dug in the bushveld of South Africa. We need to be able to develop as much pride in the medicines that our traditional healers have known for hundreds of years as we have regard for the medicines that the pharmaceutical companies of the US are trying to sell to the international market.
We need to be able to teach them that the politics of bartering and agricultural trade among communities is as complex and sophisticated as the trade that takes place on the stock exchanges of Wall Street, and so forth. These are philosophical and ideological battles that we have to fight, and the only way that Africans can fight those battles is by beginning to understand what it is about our essential Africanness that we need to capture, develop and grow.
One of the first and most fundamental principles about our essential Africanness is the fact that we are not a selfish continent, we are not selfish communities, and we believe in the simple concept of Ubuntu.
These are the things that, unfortunately, my colleague the hon member Kent Durr will not understand. It is hard for him for him to understand these things. [Interjections.] But that is entirely what a treaty such as the Abuja Treaty is based on and what our thinking forefathers, who put together a treaty such as this, were trying to do.
Sure, I personally have concerns about this treaty too, but they are not the kinds of concerns that say that I must look at the walls of the cage. They are the kinds of concerns that say: What can we do to make sure that this treaty eventually becomes the successful doctrine that we want it to become to lead Africa into the next century. That is the difference between the criticism that the ANC and people inside the ANC may make of the Abuja Treaty, and the kind of criticism one is likely to hear from the likes of Mr Kent Durr. [Interjections.]
Let me explain why I say so. The Abuja Treaty is trying to achieve some of the most noble ideals for the continent and for the moment. Let me go through them briefly.
Its objects are economic, social and cultural development for all the African economies; to increase the self-reliance and self-sustainability of African economies; to mobilise human and material resources for self- reliant development; to raise the standard of living of all the African peoples throughout the continent; to maintain and enhance economic stability; to foster close and peaceful relations between African countries; to co-ordinate and harmonise policies for the existing and future economic regions and communities in this continent; to achieve a common trade policy and common trade nontariff and tariff regimes; to establish a common market and to bring about the free movement of persons and goods, services, capital and information across this continent as if there were no boundaries.
Now some of these things can only be achieved if we look at some of the problems that might emerge. I just want to raise some concerns that I have personally about the Abuja Treaty, and I think it is a discourse that we as a country must engage in.
Some of the issues that came up in the committee are, I think, issues worth noting that need to be taken into account. We looked at a letter that was produced by the state law adviser in October 1999. One of the things that the state law adviser said at the time was that in order for us to ratify this treaty and become part of the process of this treaty, we needed to ensure - I will just quote quickly - that ``the matter be referred to all the appropriate authorities for a thorough investigation of all the implications and consequences involved’’. The State Law Adviser indicated that because the treaty affected a wide spectrum of line-function departments, such a determination could not be made by one department alone, although the Department of Trade and Industry might have to play a leading role.
When we asked officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs whether, over the part year or two years, an engagement had taken place with the various line-function departments around some of these issues, they indicated that the document had been sent around and the line-function departments had all given it their broad agreement. But they did not indicate to us that line- function departments were seriously beginning to look at what kinds of legislation we need to put in place and measures we need to start embarking upon now, in order to ensure that we make the Abuja Treaty a success.
For example, there are certain things that needed some more discussion. One of the issues was that if, in the SADC community, our own back-to-back tariff and nontariffs and nontariff barrier collapses with the SA-EU discussions that we have been having, then what impact would that process and the process which we have unfolded, such as the eight-year collapse of tariffs in the SADC region, have on the rate and the pace at which other regional economic communities in Africa are working? They were not able to say to us categorically that they had taken any of those concerns into account.
Even regarding matters that are of a noneconomic nature - the International Court of Justice, foreign affairs issues, issues around science, technology and information sharing, and so forth - I do not believe that our line- function departments have looked sufficiently thoroughly at how we can achieve the objectives of the Abuja Treaty and how much more we can do to make sure that we lend support to the Departments of Foreign Affairs and of Trade and Industry and so forth to ensure that when we engage in commissions of under the Abuja Treaty or go to the African Union parliament later this year, and even next year, when further meetings takes place about the Pan-African parliament, we are able to take our country, our departments and our policy with us when we move into to that particular engagement. I do not agree with the view that has been put here that we need to … [Interjections.] Please, that hon member had an opportunity to speak.
Mr K D S DURR: [Inaudible.]
An HON MEMBER: Shut up.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! [Interjections.] Continue, Mr Moosa.
Mr M V MOOSA: Thank you, Chairperson. We should not be an arrogant nation. Kent Durr would like us as South Africans to go and say that we would provide the leadership. We are going to go and make sure that … [Interjections.] Does he want to meet me outside for that pizza issue? I would be happy to meet him. [Laughter.] We need to take all the resources of our line-function departments, all the resources that our economy, our parastatals and our big transnational companies can deliver, and we need to take all the resources that our scientists, technicians and so forth can deliver into the process of technology transfers, skills transfers and so forth, to make sure that we develop what we have in Africa as best we can in a reliable way. That is a very different approach from the one suggested by Kent Durr, that we go and lead the continent out of its darkness. As if this continent does not know what is good and bad and people like Kent Durr can help us find the solutions for that! [Interjections.]
If we manage to achieve even half the objectives that we have detailed in the Abuja Treaty, even half of them. We will have been able to bring together a continent that can challenge the world on almost every single issue in a manner that does not take into account the conservative way of looking at things, that does not conform to traditional methods of medicine, science, technology and so forth. [Interjections.]
Mr K D S DURR: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I would like your ruling. This hon member, as chairman of the select committee … [Interjections.] I ask for your protection, Chairman. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Please give us your point of order.
Mr K D S DURR: Mr Chairman, this hon member, as chairman of the select committee, is advancing one argument after the other which I and my colleague from the New NP raised in the select committee. [Interjections.] And then he attacks us as if there were …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, I am sorry, but that is not a point of order. Will you continue, Mr Moosa.
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, the problem with Mr Kent Durr is that he only knows how to respond. He cannot lead, even though he talks so much about it. [Interjections.] I will meet him for pizza outside, if he so wishes, and I can tell him that, in fact, I would be delighted … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Would you please continue with your speech, Mr Moosa?
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, on a point of order: That is the third time in this specific debate that specific members in this House have said ``shut up!’’ to other members. Is that parliamentary? The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I did not hear that. Is there any evidence of that, perhaps, so that we can look at whether it is parliamentary or not?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, to my knowledge the expression
Shut up!'' is not unparliamentary. There is no precedent in which the
expressionShut up!’’ was referred to as being unparliamentary.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, that is the respected opinion of the hon the Chief Whip, but I would like to have your ruling on it.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! We will look into that and then we will come up with a ruling.
Mr C ACKERMANN: Mr Chairman, can I ask the hon member a question? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Mr Moosa, will you please continue? Actually, I did not recognise the hon member. He just jumped up and asked a question.
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, the only thing I wanted to say to him was that his questions are usually not intelligent and I would not waste my time on them. [Laughter.] But can I proceed with a few more matters? When an hon member talks nonsense, I think it is quite parliamentary to tell him to shut up. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Please!
Mr M V MOOSA: At the end of the day, and in conclusion really, I want to say that this is about the realisation of the dream that is encapsulated in the Abuja Treaty. It is a dream that those who embrace what is supposed to be meant by Africanism, will understand best. As for those who do not, I think they are going to be left behind. The hon Kent Durr was a representative of this country in London for many years. [Interjections.] He represented apartheid South Africa in London as an ambassador for many years, and he never represented Africa or the Africans there. So one cannot be derailed by this kind of opposition. I think that if we have problems with the treaty, we should look at them realistically and deal with them in that manner. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairperson, hon members, thank you for the issues that were raised in the debate, I will try to respond to some of them as best I can. Perhaps I should first say that I think we should start from the premise that we are Africans. We live on the African continent and therefore whether we join or not is not an optional thing. We are Africans.
Our destiny is tied to the destiny of the rest of the continent. [Interjections.] That is the starting point. Having said and understood it is not an option whether we join or do not join the continent, we are the continent. We are the Africans. Whatever flaws there are in this continent, they are our flaws.
I want to come back to the Abuja Treaty. The Abuja Treaty was drawn up, debated and negotiated in the absence of South Africa. South Africa could not participate fully in that debate as a member, because South Africa was still under the apartheid regime. [Interjections.] So it is a treaty that we found. It is a treaty that has lots of merit. As treaties go, I have never found one that is perfect. It does not matter where they are negotiated, whether at the UN or wherever, because these kind of documents have their own flaws, precisely because in the nature of their negotiation one has to take into account everybody’s views.
Therefore, the Abuja Treaty is a negotiated document. It is not a document that reflects one view from one country. Therefore, I would like to say that we should not behave like born-again democrats. I said this in the Assembly, because some of us want to behave like born-again democrats. Born- again democrats are people who have just been introduced to democracy for the first time, and they want to preach to people who have been practising democracy for decades. [Interjections.]
South Africans should stop being arrogant and behaving like born-again democrats. [Interjections.] We are only six years old, hon members must remember. Across the border from the North West we have Botswana, which has had democracy, stability and economic development and growth for more than 30 years. So we cannot think when it comes to the continent that suddenly nobody knows anything and that it is just South Africans who have to lead.
How can we lead people who themselves have produced this treaty? We can give our views on various matters and whether we do not agree with this or that. Maybe with time and hindsight we can all say we that we want to amend the treaty. But it would be wrong to say that Africa should be led by South Africa, as if we have so much experience of democracy, and of living in peace and stability. We do not. There are things which are our strengths and which we should use, but not in an arrogant manner.
I want to answer a few of the questions. Hon Durr says the treaty is flawed. Well, it may be, but the treaty is a treaty that was negotiated. It is a treaty which if, as we implement it we think it is flawed, we as the Africans on the continent whose treaty it is will recognise those flaws and will correct them as Africans as a whole, not just as South Africa.
He asked a very pertinent and legitimate question about whether the Pan- African Parliament is not going to impinge on our sovereignty, and so on. I want to answer his question in two parts by saying that in the globalised world there are lots of sovereign rights that we cede. If we look at the WTO and how it works, a lot of sovereign rights are ceded there. When one talks about tariffs, one is ceding one’s tariff harmonisation, one is ceding one’s sovereign rights, but what does one get in return? That is what one has to look at.
In general and not referring specifically to the parliamentary question, there will be rights that one would have to cede in order to be part of the global village. We must accept that there will be rights that we will cede. However, having said that, the OAU has already looked at the treaty, and has looked at what sort of things we can change. On Tuesday, 7 November, there will be a meeting here in South Africa of parliamentarians in order to look at the Pan-African parliamentary protocol. This is because the leaders of the continent recognise that at this point in time we can bring up and form the Pan-African parliament now, and not wait. However, in recognising the hon Mr Durr’s concern, they have said that at this point in time the Pan-African Parliament will not have legislative powers. It will have consultative powers, and it will also have …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order!
Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairperson, on a point of order: The subject that the Minister is addressing now is the next subject on the Order Paper, and we have an agreement in the House about the debate on the Pan-African Parliament.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, I am sorry but that is not a point of order.
Mr C ACKERMANN: I just want to raise my point of order.
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, that is quite wrong. The treaty deals with the parliamentary union right throughout and this member knows he is being mischievous. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Please, hon member, sit down.
Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairperson, must I sit down?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Yes, please.
Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairman, I want to raise a point of order, and you are not giving me a chance to raise a point of order. The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: What is your point of order?
Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairman, the point of order is that the Minister is addressing a subject that is the next subject on the Order Paper. We have an agreement in this House. She is now addressing the whole issue. We could then rather dispose of this debate, and do away with it. It was a special agreement in this House that that debate will take place next week. The Minister is not doing us a favour by talking about the African Parliament. [Interjections.]
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairperson, now I realise why it is not parliamentary to say, ``Shut up!’’ [Laughter.] I am answering a very direct question that came from the hon Durr. He addressed me as he was speaking and said … [Interjections.] … Shut up! He said. I must answer this question about sovereignty in relation to the Pan-African Parliament. That is all I am doing. If the hon member does not want to hear the answer, he should shut up and get out. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Mr C ACKERMANN: I do not take my orders from you. The MINISTER: Nor do I take mine from you. You have no right to give them to me anyway. [Interjections.]
Mr C ACKERMANN: You must go to Nigeria. [Interjections.]
The MINISTER: Nigeria is on the continent. I am African, so you are not scaring me when you say I must go to Nigeria.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order!
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, on a point of order …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Sorry, Mr Moosa. I would like everything to be referred to the Chair, because the Chair is in existence.
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, there is a member of this House, the hon Ackermann, who has asked the hon the Minister to go back to Nigeria. That, I believe, is quite a derogatory statement and, in fact, might even be racist. [Interjections.] I would like the Chairperson to ask that member to please withdraw that comment. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Continue, hon Minister.
The MINISTER: Chairperson, I would like to answer the hon Durr by saying the Pan-African Parliament that is being established is not going to have legislative powers. It is going to be consultative. It will thus not impinge on the sovereignty of this country.
Secondly, it will consist of members of parliament elected by each country. There will not be a continental election. Having said that, I also want to address the question asked by the hon member.
Mr K D S DURR: Mr Chairman, if I could be helpful on a point of explanation. [Interjections.] It is a point of order. I would like to raise a point of order, if I may, and say to the Minister that I thank her for courtesy, but I did not raise the question of the Parliament at all.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! That is not a point of order, Mr Durr.
The MINISTER: Chairperson, we have to be patient with the born-again Africans who think they can insult us by calling us ``Nigerians’’. [Interjections.] We have to be patient, and we are indeed going to be patient, because we cannot wish them away. They are here to stay. We just have to take them along slowly, slowly, but surely. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: But this time it is on our terms.
The MINISTER: Indeed, that is correct. There were other questions about whether the departments were looking at this and what legislation was required. Of course, once the treaty is ratified we have to look at that. What I want to say is that things are changing pretty fast, even on the continent and in its way of thinking. Some of the things that are in the Abuja Treaty may change as we go along. We are looking at that and the House can rest assured that all the departments are on board. We will obviously take into account the pace of the development of the other regional blocs.
For the past two days I have been in Zambia, for instance. They were launching their free trade area, Comesa, which is the first bloc to actually have a free trade area. It is a very important step. There may be lots of problems, teething problems in its implementation, but nevertheless it is a very important step. The pace of development is not the same, and some regions may develop faster than others, but the important thing is that each region must try and make sure that its pace, its development is such that it can indeed form a building block for the integration of the rest of the continent. We will do all the work that needs to be done.
Allow me also to respond to one or two issues that were raised. One hon member raised issues that are not quite pertinent but may be on the fringes, including Aids. The member indirectly attacked the Government on how it is handling Aids and how it is handling Zimbabwe. I am not quite sure how it really relates to the treaty, but I just want to say, from where I sit, that it is indeed a shame that we South Africans do not realise that the attack that all these people are making on our President is also an attack on our government. It is an attack on all of us, particularly on this side of the House, namely the ANC.
What is the sin of the President in all this? His only sin is that he is talking for the poor. Whether one looks at Aids or Zimbabwe, or wherever he is being vilified, he is talking for the poor. He is talking about poverty eradication, and saying that an Aids campaign cannot be divorced from a campaign against poverty. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with that? That is his only sin.
One looks at everything, and at the bottom of it one sees that the President is talking for the poor in this country, the downtrodden, the discriminated against. We talk about the Abuja Treaty and the opposition bring all those things here. Why? It is because we have people like that hon member who said to me that I should go back to Nigeria. This is my country, my friend.
Mr C ACKERMANN: Maybe you should go to Zambia.
The MINISTER: This is my country. This is my country, and you are not going to get away with that nonsense. This is South Africa. This is the African continent. This is our continent, that you have messed up for decades and centuries. Now that we are trying to correct it, how can you have the audacity to say that we must go back to Nigeria? [Interjections.] What audacity it is to say that we must go back to Nigeria, when your mind and hands are dripping with the blood of our people who fought for this country! [Applause.]
You may laugh, but you are not really laughing. It is hurting inside, because you know. Unfortunately we have tried our best as Africans in this country to be very, very reconciliatory. When we reconcile and we say we want peace, because we want it and we want to develop, you mistake that for a God-given right.
You must stop being racist. What do you mean by saying I should go back to Nigeria? You must stop it. This country cannot tolerate racists like you. You do not belong in this country. You are a disgrace to your own people. You are a disgrace to your own people that you wanted to lead. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Report adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
Mr C A ACKERMANN: Why don’t you stay … [Inaudible.] [Interjections.] The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My next trick is to come and give you a good hiding. [Laughter.]
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF AD HOC SELECT COMMITTEE ON PAN-AFRICAN
PARLIAMENT
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: According to the speakers’ list, the hon B N Dlulane will make a statement.
[Mrs B N DLULANE: Mhlalingaphambili, ndiphakama ngexesha elibi, emva kokubhoxwa kwentetho ebimnandi kangaka zizibhoxi. [Uwele-wele.] [Chairperson, I am afraid that I have to stand up after a very interesting speech was obstructed by obstructors. [Interjections.]
Hon members will recall the heroic struggle waged by our countries during the last century for political independence, human dignity and economic emancipation. We take pride in the achievements made to promote and consolidate African unity and we salute the heroism and sacrifices of our people, particularly during the liberation struggles.
Colonialism in Africa and particularly apartheid in South Africa have projected African countries as part of Europe, rather than African countries. In order to cope with these challenges and to effectively address the new social, political and economic realities in Africa and in the world, we are determined to fulfil our peoples’ aspiration for greater unity in diversity, as we will recognise and take account of the racial, ethnic, religious, political, linguistic and cultural diversity on our continent.
I would like to believe that as African countries, regardless of our past, or indeed because of it, we are committed to the continuous and sustained spiritual upliftment and fulfilment of all the individual persons who constitute African society and therefore the construction of a better society for all.
Since the Pan-African Parliament was first mooted, articles 7 and 14 of the monumental treaty establishing the African Economic Community signed in Abuja, Nigeria, on 3 June 1991 provided for a Pan-African Parliament for the community whose composition, functions, powers and organisation are today being discussed in this House. This treaty is monumental in that it adds yet another pillar to support our fundamental challenges of promoting human dignity and economic emancipation.
In order to strengthen the unity of our continent and its people, we have to establish African union to ensure the speedy establishment of all the institutions provided for in the Abuja Treaty, such as an African central bank, African monetary union, the African Court of Justice, and in particular, most of all, the Pan-African Parliament.
The Pan-African Parliament will not be a legislative body, but deliberative and consultative, and Pan-African parliamentarians’ terms will run concurrently with their terms in their respective national parliaments.
In this endeavour we were inspired by the ideas which guided the founding fathers of our organisation and generations of Pan-Africanists in their resolve to forge unity, solidarity and cohesion as well as co-operation between African people and among African states.
As members of the South African Parliament with the task of ensuring the ongoing work of the establishment of the Pan-African Parliament, we have come up with the following resolutions. The Pan-African Parliament should be a deliberative body without any law-making powers. The Pan-African Parliament should be composed of eight members from each member state appointed by each national parliament from its ranks on the basis of broad representivity, with a minimum of three women members. Members of the Pan- African Parliament should represent the views of their respective parliaments. The term of each Pan-African parliamentarian should run with his or her term in the national parliament concerned. Some general objectives of the Pan-African Parliament should be inserted in the draft protocol. The seat of the Pan-African Parliament should be determined by the Assembly of the Heads of State of the African Union. The direct election of members of the Pan-African Parliament would not be appropriate. The procedure for the election of the president and vice-presidents should be specifically stated in the protocol. The protocol should be reviewed at intervals of not less than five years.
That is what we, as this Parliament, are saying. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Declaration of vote:
Mr K D S DURR: Mr Chairman, we are not opposed conceptually to the Pan- African Parliament, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we simply do not think that the conditions yet exist for such a parliament. It is the right thing to do, but this is the wrong time. In terms of our values, a parliament presupposes truly democratic, multiparty, elected participants. We do not even agree in Africa on what constitutes parliamentary democracy. Certainly Libya does not qualify. In short, we cannot start at the end. We must have a developmental approach, building from the bottom, building sound foundations and infrastructure, including strong regional organisations based on trade and co-operation, on which to found a truly democratic parliament.
There has been far too little deliberation, and insufficient consideration and consultation, and we therefore oppose this measure at this time. For us it is too much, too soon.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Are you making a declaration, hon member? Mr C ACKERMANN: Voorsitter, mnr Durr het gepraat namens … [Chairperson, Mr Durr was speaking on behalf of …]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Which province is that?
Mr C ACKERMANN: The Western Cape. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: The Western Cape has already made a declaration. [Interjections.]
Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairperson, may I address you on this issue?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Very well, but let me allow the Chief Whip an opportunity first.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, on a point of order: Mr Durr has spoken and this is a provincial vote. If Mr Ackermann had a difficulty about Mr Durr’s mandate or authority to speak, he should have stood up and objected at the time that Mr Durr was speaking.
He should know that Mr Durr is from the Western Cape and I assume that he does know. Mr Ackermann cannot now take an opportunity of speaking on behalf of the province when he has, as the provincial Whip, permitted another member from the delegation to speak on its behalf.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, I think that clarifies everything.
Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairperson, I think …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Based on that explanation, I am not recognising you.
Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairperson, I think you should give me a chance to address you. You personally ruled that Mr Durr could make a declaration on behalf of the ACDP and not on behalf of the Western Cape. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: No, no,
Mr C ACKERMANN: That was told to me and you made that ruling. [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I think our members are becoming very economical with the truth.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Absolutely.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: I believe this is the second occasion in a matter of half an hour that a situation like this has arisen. In the first instance, Mr Durr put it to the Minister that he had not raised the issue of Pan-African parliamentiarism.
I request, in my capacity as Chief Whip, that the records of Hansard be perused in order to ascertain whether, in fact, Mr Durr did raise the issue of the Pan-African Parliament in his speech or not. If he did, in fact, do so, and suggested to the hon the Minister that he had not done so, then the matter should be taken further.
In the case of Mr Ackermann, again, I believe we should peruse the records of Hansard and not debate the matter further. If Mr Durr had, in fact, spoken and conveyed to you that he is speaking on behalf of the party, and you had affirmed that he was speaking on behalf of the ACDP, then it is in order. But, if he did not do so, I then believe that the decorum and dignity of this House must be respected and the appropriate steps should be taken. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! On what point are you rising, hon member?
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, on a point of order: I am very happy to provide the Chief Whip with a copy of my speech. I will hand it to him now. [Interjections.]
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, that is not a point of order. [Interjections.]
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, on a point of order: I approached the Chair earlier and asked him whether or not this measure was a provincial or a national measure, and I was told that I could raise a declaration of vote, which I consequently did.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I believe that Mr Durr is taking advantage of the proceedings in this House. He is now rising on a point of order which, in fact, is not a point of order. The statement that has been made is that the hon Chair had ruled that he could speak on behalf of the ACDP. Those were the words that were uttered in this House. I believe we should peruse the Hansard and deal with the matter appropriately.
I am not suggesting that a finding be made or a decision be taken now, but I want the hon Chair to have an opportunity to do so and deal with the matter in the appropriate way.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! We will check the Hansard and come back with a ruling.
Report adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
(Ruling)
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! May I draw the attention of the House to a ruling on the issue of the term ``Shut up!’’ Having considered the matter, I wish to say that such language does not enhance the dignity of the House. Members of the House should not treat one another with such contempt. I do not know who said these words … [Interjections.] … because I would have insisted that the person withdraw them. [Interjections.] We will therefore look at the Hansard. [Interjections.]
The Council adjourned at 16:35. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
WEDNESDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2000
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Assent by the President of the Republic in respect of the
following Bills:
(a) Finance Bill [B 40 - 2000] - Act No 35 of 2000 (assented
to and signed by President on 27 October 2000);
(b) Meat Safety Bill [B 29D - 2000] - Act No 40 of 2000
(assented to and signed by President on 27 October 2000);
and
(c) Transnet Pension Fund Amendment Bill [B 57B - 2000] - Act
No 41 of 2000 (assented to and signed by President on 27
October 2000).
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
The following paper was tabled on 31 October 2000 and is now referred
to the Portfolio Committee on Finance and the Select Committee on
Finance:
Explanatory Memorandum on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, 2000 [WP 2-
2000].
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
The following papers were tabled on 30 October 2000 and are now
referred to the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, the Select
Committee on Finance and the Select Committee on Security and
Constitutional Affairs for consideration and report:
(a) the committees to confer; and
(b) the Select Committee on Economic Affairs to report:
(i) The Constitutive Act of the African Union, tabled in terms
of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.
(ii) Explanatory Memorandum on the Constitutive Act of the
African Union.
- The Chairperson:
Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces:
Bill passed by National Assembly on 30 October 2000 and transmitted for
concurrence:
(a) Marine Living Resources Amendment Bill [B 68B - 2000] (National
Assembly - sec 75) - (Select Committee on Land and Environmental
Affairs - National Council of Provinces).
Bills passed by National Assembly on 31 October 2000 and transmitted
for concurrence:
(a) National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Bill [B 39B - 2000]
(National Assembly - sec 75) (introduced as Directorate of Special
Operations Bill [B 39 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75) -
(Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs -
National Council of Provinces).
(b) Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B 63B - 2000] (National
Assembly - sec 75) - (Select Committee on Security and
Constitutional Affairs - National Council of Provinces).
Bills passed by National Assembly on 1 November 2000 and transmitted
for concurrence:
(a) Second Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 67 - 2000] (National
Assembly - sec 77) - (Select Committee on Finance - National
Council of Provinces).
(b) Redetermination of the Boundaries of Cross-boundary
Municipalities Bill [B 69 - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75) -
(Select Committee on Local Government and Administration -
National Council of Provinces).
-
The Chairperson:
Mr M E Surty has been elected co-chairperson of the Mediation Committee with effect from 1 November 2000.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Trade and Industry:
Report and Financial Statements of the Competition Tribunal for 1999-
2000, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 1999-2000.
- The Minister of Health:
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Health of the
Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Ministry of Health
of the People's Republic of China on Public Health and Medical
Sciences, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Cross-Border Insolvency Bill [B 4B - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 31 October 2000:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the subject of the Cross-Border Insolvency Bill [B 4B - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
The Committee wishes to report further, as follows:
-
During its deliberations on the Bill, the Committee noted that in terms of -
(1) Clause 2(2), the Act will only apply in respect of States designated by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development by notice in the Gazette; and
(2) Clause 2(3), the said Minister may at any time withdraw such notice, whereupon the State referred to in that notice ceases to be a foreign State for the purposes of the Act.
-
The Committee further noted that the Bill does not provide for a mechanism in terms of which pending proceedings could be dealt with upon the withdrawal of a notice referred to in Clause 2(2). The Committee expresses the concern that the lack of such a mechanism could possibly create uncertainty regarding the manner in which such proceedings should be dealt with.
Due to insufficient time, the Committee was not in a position to have this matter thoroughly investigated. The Committee therefore recommends that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development be requested to direct his Department to investigate this matter and, if necessary, to submit an appropriate amendment to Parliament. The Committee further requests the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to submit a report to the Committee on its progress regarding the above investigation within six months after the adoption of this Report by the National Council of Provinces.
-
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Ad Hoc Select Committee on Pan-African Parliament, dated 1 November 2000:
1. The Ad Hoc Select Committee on Pan-African Parliament was
established by resolution of the National Council of Provinces on
19 September 2000, to consider the proposed formation of a Pan-
African Parliament. The Committee was formally constituted on 10
October 2000.
2. The Committee considered a draft Protocol to the Treaty
establishing the African Economic Community relating to the Pan-
African Parliament, limited its discussions to issues of
principle, and agreed on the following guidelines:
(1) The Pan-African Parliament should be a deliberative body,
without any law-making powers.
(2) The Pan-African Parliament should be composed of eight
members from each Member State, appointed by each national
Parliament from its ranks, on the basis of broad
representivity, with a minimum of three women members.
(3) Members of the Pan-African Parliament should represent the
views of their respective Parliaments.
(4) The term of each Pan-African parliamentarian should run
with his or her term in the national Parliament concerned.
(5) Some general objectives of the Pan-African Parliament
should be inserted in the draft Protocol.
(6) The seat of the Pan-African Parliament should be
determined by the Assembly of the Heads of State of the
African Union.
(7) Direct elections of members of the Pan-African Parliament
would not be appropriate.
(8) The procedure for the election of the President and the
Vice-Presidents should be specifically stated in the Protocol.
(9) The Protocol should be reviewed at intervals of not less
than five years.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Rome Statute, dated 1 November 2000:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Statute.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the RSA/USA Extradition Treaty, dated 1 November 2000:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the United States of America, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Treaty.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the RSA/USA Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, dated 1 November 2000:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Treaty between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the United States of America on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Treaty.
Report to be considered.
THURSDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2000
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
On 13 October 2000 the National Assembly rejected the Tourism Amendment
Bill [B 50D - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76(1)). Consequently that
Bill, as well as the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50B - 99] (National
Assembly - sec 76(1)) (ie the version agreed to by the National
Assembly on 19 May 2000), was referred to the Mediation Committee. On 2
November 2000 the Secretary to Parliament, in accordance with Joint
Rule 188(3), submitted the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50F - 99]
(National Assembly - sec 76(1)), as agreed to by the Mediation
Committee, to the Speaker of the National Assembly and Chairperson of
the National Council of Provinces for consideration by the Houses. (For
report of Mediation Committee, see "Committee Reports".) 2. The Speaker and the Chairperson:
The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
relevant committee as mentioned below:
(1) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Health and to the Select Committee on Social Services:
Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Health of
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Ministry of
Health of the People's Republic of China on Public Health and
Medical Sciences, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(2) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Trade and Industry and to the Select Committee on Economic
Affairs. The report of the Auditor-General contained in the report
of the Competition Tribunal is referred to the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts for consideration and report:
Report and Financial Statements of the Competition Tribunal for
1999-2000, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 1999-2000.
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces:
Bill passed by National Assembly on 2 November 2000 and transmitted for
concurrence:
General Intelligence Law Amendment Bill [B 36B - 2000) (National
Assembly - sec 75) - (Ad hoc Select Committee on General
Intelligence Law Amendment Bill - National Council of Provinces).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
REPORT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN DELEGATION TO THE CONFERENCE OF PRESIDING
OFFICERS OF PARLIAMENTS
United Nations General Assembly Hall, New York, United States of
America - 30 August - 1 September
Delegation:
Members:
Dr F N Ginwala, Speaker of the National Assembly; Ms N Pandor,
Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces; Ms B Mbete, Deputy
Speaker of the National Assembly; Mr M L Mushwana, Permanent Deputy
Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces; Mr D H M Gibson, MP
Staff:
N Mgayiya
K Christians
Report:
The IPU convened the Conference of Presiding Officers of National
Parliaments at United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Conference
was held in conjunction with the Millennium Assembly and took place in
the United Nations General Assembly Hall from 30 August to 1 September
2000.
The aims of the Conference were to express support for international
cooperation and to enshrine a commitment at the highest level by
parliaments to work much more closely with the UN system and other
major international negotiating fora both nationally and globally
through their world organisation, the IPU. The Conference is part of
the IPU's efforts to strengthen its cooperation with the UN, as
envisaged in the Agreement of Cooperation concluded between the two
Organisations in 1996.
In order to prepare the Conference, the IPU set up a Preparatory
Committee composed of the President of the IPU Council, several
Presiding Officers, including the Speaker of the National Assembly, and
other MPs. The Committee met in Vienna (January 1999), in Rabat
(September 1999) and in Geneva (January 2000) to draw up the practical
arrangements for the Conference, to draft the Rules of the Conference,
and to prepare a Declaration for the Conference.
The Declaration, entitled the "Parliamentary vision for international
cooperation at the dawn of the third millennium", highlights the main
challenges facing the world community and the United Nations in the
twenty-first century, describes changes in international relations and
outlines the national, regional and international parliamentary
dimension of international cooperation. The first drafts were prepared
by a Working Group. The IPU geopolitical groups and the national
parliaments represented in the IPU were given an opportunity to study
the text and make proposals prior to its finalisation at the third and
last meeting of the Preparatory Committee. Presiding Officers of
national parliaments provided their perspective on the Declaration in
their speeches and adopted it by consensus.
The Conference was opened with a welcoming address by the United
Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan and an opening statement by
the President of the IPU Council, Mrs. Najma Heptulla. The keynote
address was given by the President of the United Nations General
Assembly, Mr. Theo Ben Gurirab.
Introducing the Declaration for its adoption, Mr M Traoré, Speaker of
the National Assembly of Burkina Faso, stated that the presiding
officers intended to "convey this document to our parliaments, as
appropriate, and to urge them to do everything possible to ensure that
it is followed up in a practical and effective manner. We also request
our governments to bring this declaration to the attention of the
United Nations General Assembly for debate. Finally, we call upon the
United Nations and the Inter-Parliamentary Union to seek ways of
strengthening their institutional links and practical cooperation."
Text of declaration (MS Word "IPU.Text.ipm"):
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Mediation Committee on the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50B and B 50D - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 1 November 2000:
The Mediation Committee, having considered the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50B and B 50D - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76), as well as the papers referred to it, reports as follows:
-
The Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50B - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76) was passed by the National Assembly on 19 May 2000 and submitted to the National Council of Provinces for approval.
- The National Council of Provinces passed the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50D - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76) on 3 October 2000, containing a number of amendments agreed to by the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs.
-
Upon referral of the latter amended Bill to the National Assembly, that House accepted some of the amendments passed by the National Council of Provinces, with the exception of five amendments to Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. Consequently, the National Assembly rejected the Bill.
-
The Bill was referred to the Mediation Committee on 13 October 2000 in terms of Joint Rule 186(1)(b) of the Joint Rules of Parliament. The Mediation Committee met on 1 November 2000, and, after deliberation, agreed to submit another version of the Bill.
-
The effect of this decision is that the Secretary to Parliament is required to submit the latter version of the Bill to both the Speaker and the Chairperson of the Council in terms of Joint Rule 188(3), for consideration by the House and the Council.
- The Committee therefore submits the Tourism Amendment Bill [B 50F - 99] (National Assembly - sec 76), and recommends that the House and the Council pass this mediated version.
-
-
Fourteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, dated 30 October 2000:
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, having considered the
Special Review of the Auditor-General of the Selection Process of
Strategic Defence Packages for the Acquisition of Armaments at the
Department of Defence [RP 161-2000], as well as certain papers referred
to it, and having heard evidence, reports as follows:
1. Introductory Comment
By many accounts the international arms trade industry experiences
a high incidence of malpractice, with purchasing countries often
having been the victims of very costly exploitation. With this in
mind, the Committee has considered the transactions and the
broader financial and fiscal implications pertaining to the recent
South African arms purchases. These have been considered through
the Auditor-General's special review [RP 161-2000] and the
Committee's subsequent public hearing concerning these
acquisitions and through the substantial quantity of solicited and
unsolicited information it has gathered. The Committee's resultant
observations and findings provide the basis for the following
Report and its accompanying recommendations.
2. Cost to State
On 15 September 1999, when announcing its decision to contract for
the strategic arms packages, Cabinet presented the total cost
thereof to be R29,9 billion. Two months later this was adjusted to
R30,3 billion. The Committee has looked into both the validity of
this amount and the State's attention to the full financial and
fiscal implications of the purchases.
Regarding the first issue, it has become clear to the Committee
that the Cabinet's announcement omitted to mention certain other
cost implications which, it would seem, will significantly add to
the State's commitment. These factors included the cost of
servicing the loan portion of the payment obligations (i.e. the
interest charged), the price escalation conditions contained in
the supplier contracts and the cost effects of negative foreign
exchange movements.
In September 2000, the cost at current foreign exchange rates,
together with contractual price escalations, had risen to R43,8
billion. This figure, which was quoted by the Department of
Defence at the Committee's hearing of the Department on 11 October
2000 and which was later acknowledged by the National Treasury in
writing, excluded the interest obligations which would arise from
the associated loans. The Committee expresses its concern at the
possibility of the overall cost of the arms packages increasing
further over the term of the contracts concerned. As all this is
hugely material to the public interest, the Committee believes
that the public should have been informed of these possibilities.
The Committee's scrutiny of the documentation presented to it by
the various departments, and from which the Cabinet made its
ultimate decision, indicates that the Cabinet was sufficiently
informed to have made the public aware of the fuller cost
possibilities of the deal.
Concerning the second issue, the Committee is satisfied that the
National Treasury, in its 1999 "affordability study", did address
the foreign exchange, price escalation and interest considerations
and that it attempted to estimate and project these considerations
into its long-term budget and cash-flow thinking. The National
Treasury's submissions to the Cabinet were also careful to point
out the risks associated with these factors. The National Treasury
is commended for the comprehensive approach used by its study.
Nonetheless, the Committee will remain anxious about the movements
within certain major currency markets and the realism of the macro-
economic assumptions used. In this regard, it intends meeting with
the Minister of Finance, together with the Portfolio Committee of
Finance, to discuss the ongoing assessment of the economic and
financial fundamentals of the defence packages.
It must be pointed out that the Committee does note the partial
neutralisation of foreign exchange and balance of payment effects,
through the currency-linked arrangements of the anticipated offset-
related inflows.
The Committee has at this stage not obtained all the information
necessary for it to complete its evaluation of the cost make-up of
the prices to be paid for the Gripen and Hawk deals, where there
is a doubling of the basic unit prices - apparently for necessary
extra features. The Committee will pursue this detail, with the
assistance of the Auditor-General, in order to satisfy itself that
there was no loading of the price - to cover Industrial
Participation guarantees or to offset the cost of any other
Industrial Participation obligation.
3. Offsets arrangements - Defence industrial participation
programmes and national industrial participation programmes
(DIPs/NIPs)
Concern has also been expressed, through the Auditor-General's
review, about the government's announcement of the R104 billion in
offsets (investment and counter-trade).
A subsequent government press release indicated that this amount
represented the nominal value of the offset transactions and that
the economic benefit that would flow from this for the country,
would be in the region of R70 billion. The government also
estimated that this activity would create 65 000 new jobs in South
Africa. The Committee has thus directed its attention towards
verifying the make-up of both these amounts, their credibility and
evaluating the possibility of their realisation.
Also of interest to the Committee is the difference in opinion
regarding the essential purpose of the industrial participation
contracts which make up the R104 billion. While the government
argued mainly from the point of the industrial participation
arrangement contribution to economic development, the negotiating
team which secured the arrangements and the Department of Trade
and Industry say these arrangements are rather about countering
the negative economic and fiscal effects of the arms deals.
The Committee acknowledges that substantial thought and effort has
been put into the establishing of these arrangements and to secure
their certainty.
Of the R104 billion the Committee is advised that R14,7 billion
relates to DIPs and R89,4 billion to NIPs. The DIPs would appear
to be fairly assured as these projects are directly connected to
the production of the armament purchases in question, and
therefore payment would only be made once these deals were
completed. The uncertainties therefore relate more to the
enforcement of the NIPs.
The Committee's considerations therefore focus strongly on the
attainment of these vitally necessary offset projects,
particularly bearing in mind experience of developing countries.
The exceptionally high industrial participation demands on the
suppliers and the seemingly low penalties should they default (10%
of the contract price in the case of NIPs), are also noted in this
regard.
It is this last issue, in particular, raised by the Auditor-
General, which is of most concern to the Committee. The NIPs
contractual arrangements appear to allow for a supplier, once
having supplied the arms and having received payment therefor, to
pay over a relatively modest sum of money and be unconditionally
excused from all offset obligations. Notwithstanding the
Departments of Defence and of Trade and Industry believing that
this is not likely, the Committee remains concerned.
The Committee observes that these deals were negotiated at a time
when the international arms industry was in a situational
downturn. With international armament markets having since
recovered, the Committee fears that the large commitments by
suppliers might now be resisted and even reneged upon. With South
Africa unlikely to be a serious arms purchaser over the next few
decades, this possibility needs to be watched closely.
Notwithstanding explanations by members of the government's
negotiating team, the Committee is reluctant to accept that
suppliers whose intentions are honourable, would refuse to agree
to guarantees of more than 10%. Given that these are essentially
business arrangements that are only as good as their viability,
two questions arise: Firstly, does the resistance to a higher than
10% guarantee (which need not be limited to bank type guarantees)
suggest a lack of confidence in the business viability of the
offsets proposed? Secondly, if these business deals are
sufficiently competitive to be viable, why then are they only
explored via arms procurement deals?
The Committee notes that there is sufficient flexibility for
suppliers to respond to changing market and business conditions by
proposing alternative ventures, if necessary.
The government-to-government agreements, which make references to
NIPs commitments, while noble in intent and of some influence in
official international communications, have questionable
contractual or legal standing.
The Committee sees the economic benefit of these NIPs as a
significant part of the bigger "value-for-money" composition of
the arms deals, and as such sees a strong responsibility on the
part of the government to enforce them. In addition to an
effective monitoring system, the Committee wishes to see the
government assertively pursuing delivery of these benefits. Any
possibilities for the tightening up of these arrangements should
be investigated - especially the proportionately large British
Aerospace obligations. The Committee would wish to receive
biannual reports on the progressive realisation of these
commitments - both at their overall value and the economic benefit
value. This is necessary to assure the public on the social
payback from this major diversion of public resources (i.e. the
matter of the opportunity costs).
Relatedly, the Committee expresses concern at the possibly
optimistic estimations of jobs to be created, and advises of its
intention to request the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry
to express its opinion on this.
Finally, the actual written contracts do not appear well prepared,
with instances of clumsy language, missing annexures and incorrect
references. One of the more important indiscretions is the
reference to the use of two different foreign currencies in one of
the contracts. The Committee will assess whether these important
contracts were subjected to appropriate legal scrutiny during
preparation.
4. Selection of prime contractors
The Committee has noted the processes employed for the selection
of the prime contractors. Because of the possibilities of improper
influence having been exerted in certain of these selections,
further investigation is considered necessary.
In the case of the Lead In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) contract, the
Committee is concerned as to the reason why the evaluation system,
which was accepted in April 1998, was changed at a combined Arms
Acquisition Council and Arms Acquisition Steering Board meeting in
June 1998.
A special ministerial briefing concerning the two options were
presented to the subcommittee concerned on 31 August 1998, where
it was decided to go with the non-costed option. This would appear
to have led to the choice of a contractor who otherwise would not
have been awarded the contract. The Committee remains unconvinced
as to why the change in evaluation method took place (after
submission of tenders), and why such change was only introduced in
this particular programme. A further unanswered question is
whether only the non-costed option was presented to the Cabinet.
These matters should also be included in the investigation
recommended below.
5. Selection of subcontractors
The Committee is concerned about the possible role played by
influential parties in determining the choice of subcontractors by
prime contractors. What further concerns the Committee is that the
government had no influence in the appointment of subcontractors.
The Committee refers to this in its recommendation for further
investigation, mentioned below.
The instance concerning the Integrated Management Systems (IMS) of
Corvettes should be included in such an investigation, not only
because it was included in the review of the Auditor-General, but
also because of the large volume of information made available to
the Committee on the matter. One aspect that the Committee will
particularly examine, is the basis for comparisons of the
respective products and the basis upon which the risk for the
South African product was loaded.
6. Acquisition policies (Ministry of Defence; Armscor)
The Auditor-General's review raises a number of questions
concerning the arms procurement policies and procedures used in
the deals in question. This not only relates to their all-round
appropriateness, but also to their application. One example was
the Armscor tendering processes followed, where conflict-of-
interest provisions are clearly weak.
The Committee also questions whether there was not too great a
concentration of influence - from documentation through to
decision-making. This is to be a part of the investigation
recommended below.
There should be a thorough post mortem and review of the arms
procurement processes. It is recommended that the Auditor-General
assist in the conduct of this further review.
7. Special forensic investigation
After the National Assembly had referred the Auditor-General's
report to this Committee, the Committee received a large amount of
unsolicited evidence, of varying plausibility, from a number of
different sources. Amongst the numerous allegations and assertions
were those which reflected common ground to a significant degree.
It is on the basis of this, and the Committee's perception of the
other issues raised in this Report, as well as the need to prove
or disprove once and for all the allegations which cause damage to
perceptions of the government, that the Committee recommends an
independent and expert forensic investigation.
In this regard, the Committee will prepare a brief for such an
investigation, which stipulates particular assertions that ought
to be investigated, while placing no limitation on the scope of
the investigation.
In noting the complex and cross-cutting nature of the areas to be
investigated, the Committee feels that the investigation would be
best served by combining a number of areas of investigative
expertise and a number of differing areas of legal competence and
authority. It therefore recommends that an exploratory meeting,
convened by the Committee, be held within two weeks of the tabling
of this Report in National Assembly. The Auditor-General, the
Heath Special Investigating Unit, the Public Protector, the
Investigating Directorate of Serious Economic Offences and any
other appropriate investigative body should be invited, so that
the best combination of skills, legal mandates and resources can
be found for such an investigation. Once this is established, the
Committee will issue an investigation brief to the team for its
input. Also, the chosen investigating body will be requested to
report on its progress to the Committee at regular intervals, as
well as at the conclusion of its work, so that this can be
included in the Committee's final report to the National Assembly
on the matter.
In more fully developing its brief for the proposed meeting, the
Committee will continue to complete a few areas of its own
investigation, and this could well include a meeting with certain
Cabinet Ministers. In this regard, the Committee acknowledges the
Cabinet's commitment to co-operate fully with the Committee and
with any other investigations into the procurement Deals.
8. Concluding comments
As the Committee is still finalising certain aspects of its
investigations, a second report will be issued early in 2001,
followed by a final report, which will incorporate the report of
the investigating body, once its work has been completed.
In conclusion, the Committee acknowledges the extent to which the
Department of Defence, Armscor, the National Treasury and the
Department of Trade and Industry, with the agreement of their
respective Ministers, have met their accountability commitments to
Parliament in the course of the Committee's enquiry.
Report to be considered.