National Assembly - 13 March 2001
TUESDAY, 13 MARCH 2001
____
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:03.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Rre Q J KGAUWE: Mme Sebui, ke itsise fano gore mo letsatsing le le latelang la go tsena ga Ntlo eno, ke tla tshikinya mo boemong jwa ANC:
Gore Ntlo e -
(1) amogele gore -
(a) letlhoo le tlhaolele kgotsa kgethololo ka mmala mo Aforika Borwa
ga di na bokamoso;
(b) mme re rata batho botlhe ba phela ka kagiso go se dikgotlhang
magareng ga bona;
(c) re tsamae mmogo gonne Aforika Borwa e le ya merafe yotlhe;
(d) Aforika Borwa ke lefatshe le le boneng kgololosego, go sa
kgathalesege bong jwa motho; le
(e) ditshwanelo tsa gago di botlhoka; le
(2) itumetse gonne molao o diragetse fa kgotlatshekelo ya boikuelo e ne e netefatsa gore Rre Eugéne Terre’Blanche a nne kwa kgolegelong dingwaga di le thataro. (Translation of Setswana notice of motion follows.)
[Mr Q J KGAUWE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) hatred and apartheid or racial discrimination do not have a
future in South Africa;
(b) we want all people to live peacefully without any conflicts
between them;
(c) we walk together, as South Africa is a multiracial country;
(d) South Africa gained its independence on behalf of all its
people, irrespective of gender; and
(e) your rights are important; and
(2) is pleased that the law has taken its course in that the Appeal Court has ruled that Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche should spend the next six years in jail.]
Mr B G BELL: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes with shock that -
(a) the Mpumalanga legislature building, budgeted at R120 million,
has already cost R612 million, and a further expenditure of R40
million is expected;
(b) these costs are set to escalate as a result of further
commitments; and
(c) all departments are experiencing budget cuts to cover these
exorbitant costs, and this is seriously affecting delivery to
the people; and
(2) calls on the Minister of Finance to invoke section 100 of the Constitution so that the central Government can curb the reckless spending of the ANC government in this province.
[Interjections.] [Applause.] Mr J H SLABBERT: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) learns with utter shock of the rail accident that took place over the weekend that left two people dead and 55 injured;
(2) is dismayed by the action of the train driver who got behind the stationary train involved in an accident, when warnings were allegedly conveyed to him to take precautions;
(3) is concerned about people who commit suicide on railway lines at the peril of a sizeable number of railway commuters; and
(4) calls upon the Department of Transport to search for methods that can bring about safety on railway lines jeopardised by suicidal acts.
Mr N M DUMA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the people of Uganda went to the polls yesterday to elect a
president for their country; and
(b) yesterday's presidential elections were free of violent
incidents;
(2) believes that political tolerance and peace contribute positively to free and fair elections and to the strengthening of democracy; and
(3) commends the people of Uganda for exercising their right to choose their leader in conditions of peace.
[Applause.]
Mr C M MORKEL: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes the presence of representatives from the Parkwood community in the South Peninsula administrative area of Cape Town, who are sitting in the gallery today in silent protest against the incidents of crimes against our children and youth reported over the weekend …
[Interjections.]
(2) expresses outrage at the violent murder of a young couple, Sheldon Arends, 20 years old, and Valencia Hendricks, 19 years old, who were killed in a drive-by shooting outside a family member’s home in Parkwood;
(3) calls on the Minister of Safety and Security to transfer more powers, police and other resources to provincial and local governments, such as the DA-governed Western Cape and the City of Cape Town, which are more than competent to manage a fully-staffed and fully-funded child and youth protection service with greater effectiveness than from Pretoria; and
(4) encourages other communities to follow the lead of the Parkwood community which is standing together and taking a strong stand against crime in its area by participating in crime prevention initiatives.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
Dr G W KOORNHOF: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) notes with distress that the postal strike has entered its third week, with no sign of any solution being agreed upon between workers and management;
(2) urges the SA Postal Service and the Communication Workers Union (CWU) to conclude their negotiations and reach a settlement; and
(3) further notes that ordinary citizens are bearing the brunt of this lack of service delivery due to the strike, and that, at the same time, a negative message is being sent to investors that we are currently not able to provide effective, basic services such as a postal service in this country.
Mr N J GOGOTYA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes the 12th Report for the year 1998 of Scopa in which the then accounting officer of the Department of Communications, Mr Solly Kotane, was held liable for a loss of about R1,6 million to the state;
(2) further notes that, according to the report from the Treasury and the State Attorney, the same individual cannot be traced;
(3) notes that he recently, amidst much fanfare and publicity, joined the DP, which remained silent on this matter during the deliberations of Scopa; and
(4) calls on the DP’s spokesperson in Scopa, Ms Taljaard, to assist the criminal justice system by providing it with the whereabouts of Mr Kotane.
[Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ACDP:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) that the medical director of BA Travel, Dr Jamieson, has issued
a warning that dengue fever, a purportedly incurable viral
infection transmitted by mosquitoes, like malaria, has reached
epidemic proportions in Sao Paulo;
(b) that poor living conditions in slums around many third world
countries are leading to the disease making a comeback across
the tropical and subtropical world; and
(c) that Dr Jamieson said that certain parts of South Africa could
fall victim to outbreaks of the disease, and that a failure to
invest in mosquito control and eradication programmes and to
prevent rubbish accumulation around human settlements could
result in the appearance of the disease; and
(2) calls upon the Minister of Health to tighten public health measures in South Africa to prevent an outbreak of this disease.
Dr C P MULDER: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die VF sal voorstel: Dat die Huis -
(1) kennis neem daarvan dat die Minister van Onderwys, mnr Kader Asmal, dit oorweeg om in die toekoms studente se aansoeke om toegang tot hoër onderwys-inrigtings in ‘n sentrale kantoor te laat verwerk;
(2) verder kennis neem dat die doel hiervan, volgens die Minister, sal wees om universiteittoelatings te beheer ten einde die rasse- en geslagsamestelling van instellings te beheer;
(3) sy kommer uitspreek oor hierdie beoogde blatante ingryping in die outonomie van tersiêre instellings; en
(4) ‘n beroep doen op die Minister om instellings toe te laat om studente op grond van hulle akademiese kwalifikasies en meriete toe te laat en nie op grond van ras en geslag nie. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the FF: That the House -
(1) notes that the Minister of Education, Mr Kader Asmal, is considering having students’ applications for admission to tertiary education institutions processed in a central office in future;
(2) further notes that the objective of this, according to the Minister, will be to control university admissions in order to control the race and gender composition of institutions;
(3) expresses its concern at this envisaged blatant interference in the autonomy of tertiary institutions; and
(4) appeals to the Minister to allow institutions to admit students on the basis of their academic qualifications and merit, and not on the basis of race and gender.]
Mr L M KGWELE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC: That the House -
(1) notes the initiative taken by Mr Lourie van Reenen, a farmer from Christiana in the North West province, who built a school at a cost of R1,5 million for the children of farmworkers;
(2) further notes that Mr Van Reenen has provided teachers’ accommodation, a bus to transport children from the neighbouring African community and insurance of R20 million for the learners;
(3) believes that it is ordinary patriots such as Mr Van Reenen who make us all proud to be South Africans; and
(4) commends all businesspeople and citizens who have heeded our call to unity in action against poverty.
[Applause.]
Mrs G M BORMAN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP: That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) the lavish inaugural ceremony of the ANC Ekurhuleni executive
mayor costing R400 000;
(b) President Mbeki's address to the nation in which he prioritised
fighting poverty and ensuring service delivery; and
(c) DA-run councils' modest mayoral inaugurations, including -
(i) R8 000 for Mossel Bay;
(ii) R7 000 for Midvaal; and
(iii) R1 000 for George, where private sponsors covered most
costs;
(2) deplores the extravagant waste of ratepayers’ money;
(3) commends the DA councillors for boycotting the wasteful inauguration of the Ekurhuleni mayor; and
(4) urges the Minister for Provincial and Local Government to take urgent steps to ensure that municipalities focus on service delivery and on putting the people first.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr V B NDLOVU: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) is duly shocked to learn that some police officers defy departmental regulations by operating private businesses, ranging from moneylending and funeral parlours to moonlighting in private security companies, even during office hours;
(2) is appalled to learn that Durban’s head of the Organised Crime Unit, Mr Piet Meyer, enriched himself by soliciting bribes from casino owners whose illegal operations he was supposed to bust; and
(3) abhors, in the strongest terms, the corruption practices of police officers, and calls upon the Department of Safety and Security to root out these corrupt elements.
Ms D M MOROBI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) congratulates the SAPS in Gauteng for arresting 34 people involved in child prostitution in Johannesburg;
(2) praises those SAPS members who blew the whistle on their colleagues’ involvement in child prostitution; and
(3) calls on all citizens who witness the activities of those involved in crimes which undermine the rights of children to come forward and assist the criminal justice system in protecting the rights and safety of our youth.
[Applause.]
Mr H A SMIT: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes the unsatisfactory situation resulting from the fact that the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services has not yet successfully met this year, even though we are in week 11, and that there is important legislation that needs to be passed and a chairperson also needs to be appointed;
(2) further notes that there was a feeble attempt to convene a meeting this morning without proper notice being given, and since there was no notice of this meeting on today’s Order Paper, predictably, there was no quorum;
(3) expresses concern about the fact that our Vote will be discussed on 5 April 2001, and that if we do not get the opportunity to raise issues in the committee beforehand, we cannot be expected to participate constructively in our Vote …
[Interjections.]
(4) further notes that serious allegations are surfacing in the press regarding the DG, and as the parliamentary watchdog we should have ample time to deal with these important issues; and
(5) calls on the Leader of Government Business and the Speaker to deal with this matter appropriately, since this should not be an advertisement for Parliament and democracy.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr M N RAMODIKE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) recognises the fears of the Chamber of Mines and of local and national mining houses regarding the controversial Minerals Development Bill, which has been published for public comment;
(2) notes that the mining houses are bridling at this proposed legislation with profound indignation and disenchantment, since they believe that the Bill infringes on and undermines fundamental rights and certainty sought by investors that they will be able, upon the passage of the legislation, to hold onto their old-order mineral rights;
(3) is alarmed at the failure of the Government to honour assurances given to the mining industry leaders during top-level discussions, which included the President, towards the end of last year; and
(4) calls on the Minister of Minerals and Energy to heed the call of the Chamber of Mines and the mining houses to withdraw the Bill.
MOTION OF CONDOLENCE
(The late Nomakhwezi Hani)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House-
(1) notes the untimely death of Nomakhwezi, daughter of the assassinated former secretary general of the SACP, Mr Chris Hani, and Mrs Limpho Hani, a former ANC member of Parliament;
(2) conveys its heartfelt condolences to the Hani family; and
(3) joins them in mourning the loss of their beloved daughter.
Agreed to.
ARGUS PICK 'N PAY CYCLE TOUR
(Draft Resolution) Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I hereby move without notice:
That the House-
(1) notes that the Argus Pick ‘n Pay Cycle Tour took place on Sunday in Cape Town and that approximately 35 000 cyclist participated in this event;
(2) congratulates Douglas Ryder, who won the event in 2 hours 31 minutes and 58 seconds;
(3) further congratulates the organisers and sponsors of this event on its success; and
(4) calls on other sporting codes to follow this splendid example of nation-building.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
Agreed to.
MOTION OF CONDOLENCE
(The late Mrs Kotie de Beer)
Mnr C H F GREYLING: Mev die Speaker, ek stel sonder kennisgewing voor:
Dat die Huis-
(1) kennis neem van die tragiese dood van mev Kotie de Beer wat verlede week deur ‘n luiperd in die Nasionale Kruger Wildtuin se personeeldorp, Skukuza, doodgebyt is,
(2) simpatie en meegevoel betuig met haar man, familie, vriende en personeel van die Nasionale Kruger Wildtuin,
(3) hulde bring aan alle personeel van Suid-Afrika se nasionale parke wat die natuurskatte van Suid-Afrika in stand hou, bewaar vir ons nageslag, en soms met hul lewens daarvoor boet. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.)
[Mr C H F GREYLING: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes the tragic death of Mrs Kotie de Beer, who was killed by a leopard in the staff village at Skukuza in the Kruger National Park last week;
(2) conveys its sympathy and condolences to her husband, family and friends and to the staff of the Kruger National Park; and
(3) pays tribute to all staff members of the national parks of South Africa, who conserve the natural treasures of South Africa and preserve them for posterity, and who sometimes pay with their lives.]
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON REPORT 13 OF PUBLIC
PROTECTOR
Mr A C NEL: Madam Speaker … [Interjections.] [Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr A C NEL: Madam Speaker and hon members, it is my pleasure to present to the National Assembly the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Report 13 of the Public Protector.
This morning, I came to work much earlier than usual. Upon seeing me, a member of the parliamentary staff coming off night duty remarked: ``I thought that the case of the Minister was over.’’ I think that he captured very neatly two common misconceptions. Firstly, that our committee was dealing with the case and, secondly, that the subject of the case was Minister Penuell Maduna. I think, therefore, that it would be proper to give some background to the events leading to this report.
These events date back to 1996 and it seems that the passage of time has clouded our understanding of the issues before us today. This matter has its origin in the question that was posed to Minister Maduna, then Minister of Minerals and Energy Affairs, by Mr Kobus Jordaan, who was then a DP member of Parliament.
In the course of responding to that question, the Minister raised a number of issues regarding the functioning of the Strategic Fuel Fund and, in doing so, suggested that the then Auditor-General had assisted in covering up an alleged loss of R170 million from the SFF. Objections were raised that those remarks were in contravention of Rule 99, which is now Rule 66, in that the Minister had reflected on the honour and competency of the Auditor-General other than by way of substantive motion.
A committee was constituted to look at the alleged breach of Rule 99 and matters raised by the Minister. The committee found that the Minister had, indeed, contravened Rule 99 and recommended that he should withdraw his remarks and apologise. The committee also recommended that the substantive matters raised by the Minister be referred to the Public Protector for investigation. The Minister duly apologised unreservedly and withdrew his remarks unconditionally. As far as the Assembly was concerned, this aspect of the matter had been disposed of.
From that point onwards, matters raised by the Minister were being dealt with in a manner more or less envisaged by the Rules of the Assembly. They had been encapsulated in a resolution formally adopted by the Assembly and referred to the Public Protector for investigation. It is these matters that form the bulk of the Public Protector’s investigation and report. It is on these matters that the committee interacted with the Public Protector at length and constituted the focus of our work. The Assembly gave us the mandate to consider the Public Protector’s report. We understood this to mean consideration of the report in its totality.
I have made these remarks not, as some might suggest, to divert attention from any issue, but rather in an attempt to restore focus on what the real issues are. The Public Protector, in his presentation to our committee, captured very well what we considered to be the real issues, and I quote:
The SFF Association is a wholly-owned Government company worth more than R13 billion. It was, therefore, necessary to investigate the serious allegation of irregularities in the SFF in order to rectify what was wrong and improper, and in order to report to the shareholder about the state of affairs within this asset of the state and, if appropriate, to give it a clean bill of health.
As a result of this investigation, certain structural adjustments are going to have to be made within the SFF. Financial management within the SFF is going to have to be reorganised and strengthened. The taxpayer is going to be reassured that this company, which pays dividends of millions to the state, is going to be even better managed in future.
Organs of state are going to have to take a fresh look at their relationships with each other in terms of section 41 of the Constitution, thereby ensuring that what has happened is not repeated in future. Therefore it should be clear that the initial issue of the R170 million ``loss’’ was but one element in this whole saga. Further, in view of the above, about the money which was spent mainly in the form of legal fees on this investigation, I can state without fear of contradiction that every cent was well worth it.
[Interjections.] I have been quoting the Public Protector. [Interjections.] I would like, on behalf of the committee, to thank the Public Protector and the staff in his office for the assistance which they provided to the committee and the very cordial and constructive manner in which we were able to interact with them. Other speakers will deal with the findings of the Public Protector at greater length. The Public Protector makes the overall finding that whilst there were minor technical difficulties with the abbreviated 1992-93 financial statements as published by the Auditor-General, they could not be said to be misleading or inappropriate. Whilst the committee accepted this and other findings of the Public Protector, the committee, nonetheless, felt the need to draw the following matters to the attention of the Assembly.
The CEF Group and SFF Association were instrumental in attempts by the apartheid state to break the international oil embargo imposed by the United Nations in protest against apartheid. As such, these organisations operated behind a veil of secrecy and conducted operations that were, by definition, in contravention of international law. In order to pursue these objectives, the structure and functioning of the SFF was such that it made political and administrative accountability difficult.
There are certain allegations, in particular concerning the diversion of funds from the SFF for political purposes, that the committee is not necessarily satisfied, were isolated incidents. The committee is of the view that a forensic investigation into such matters would have been in the public interest.
The Public Protector identified a number of very serious shortcomings in the corporate governance of the SFF, ie contraventions of SFF policy and weaknesses in internal control mechanisms, as well as incidents of outright maladministration. The Public Protector made a number of recommendations relating to the SFF in particular, but also to other public enterprises and organs of state. These matters will be addressed more fully by other speakers.
The ad hoc committee was not in the best position to take these recommendations forward. Accordingly, we recommended that these matters be referred to the Portfolio Committees on Minerals and Energy, Public Enterprises and Public Service and Administration, and that they should report to the National Assembly.
In his report, the Public Protector points out that neither section 181 nor section 41 of the Constitution provides any sanction for their transgression. He refers to this as a constitutional weakness that can only be remedied by Parliament itself, and that these matters are serious enough not even to be adequately addressed by a simple apology.
The committee did not wish to express itself on whether the weakness referred to lies in the Constitution or in the legislative and other measures that the Constitution enjoins other organs of state to take to protect institutional support in democracy. However, there was agreement in the committee that the institutions supporting democracy created in Chapter 9 of the Constitution play an extremely vital role in our democracy, and that measures should be taken to protect their independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness.
We recommended that these matters be referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development and also to the Constitutional Review Committee. However, subsequent to the finalisation of our report, it was pointed out to us that it was not in the nature of the Constitutional Review Committee to have matters referred to it by the National Assembly. Therefore, we will propose the following amendment to our report:
The substitution of paragraph 5(4)(d) with the following: The committee recommends that these matters be referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and report and be submitted to the Constitutional Review Committee.
With regard to the recommendation by the Public Protector that the National Assembly pronounces itself on the accountability of the Minister and any possible sanction that the National Assembly might consider appropriate, the committee considered the following factors: Firstly, that the National Assembly had already found that the Minister had acted in contravention of the Rules of the National Assembly, and that the Minister had apologised and withdrawn his remarks. Here the committee could not agree with the Public Protector, who seemed to be under the impression that the Minister apologised but did not withdraw his remarks.
Secondly, that the Public Protector found that the Minister had not acted in bad faith by raising the matters that he did. Thirdly, that the National Assembly had not constituted our committee as a disciplinary committee in which the rules of natural justice could be properly applied. Fourthly, that we took into account the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in the matter of The Speaker of the National Assembly vs De Lille and Another. We are of the opinion that, in the light of this judgment, neither the Rules of the National Assembly nor the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act provide an adequate framework within which to deal with matters such as the above.
Arriving at a verdict and imposing a sanction in the absence of clear rules, sanctions and procedures would have placed the committee, and by extension the National Assembly, in the invidious position of not only being judge, jury and prosecutor, but also lawmaker at the same time. We are of the opinion that little of lasting value to our democracy would emerge from a decision taken, and a precedent set under such circumstances. We believe that the responsible course of action under the circumstances is the one that we have suggested, namely to allow those structures of the National Assembly best qualified to do so to consider these matters soberly and dispassionately, not in the heat of political controversy, and to come up with recommendations as to how these matters should best be dealt with in future.
Accordingly, we recommend that these matters be referred to the Rules Committee of the National Assembly. We believe that in doing so, we would have acted in a manner that strengthens the rule of law, our Constitution and the democracy for which so many of our compatriots fought and died. [Applause.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Mevrou die Speaker, u het nou die agb Andries Nel se weergawe gehoor; nou gaan u die korrekte weergawe hoor. [Madam Speaker, you have now heard the hon Andries Nel’s version; now you will hear the correct version.]
The last weeks have been watershed weeks in the history of parliamentary democracy in South Africa. And if hon members of the ANC are not ashamed, they should be. The democratic Parliament established in 1994 has been damaged by the actions of the ANC, its Ministers and its members.
The major tests posed to Parliament by the arms deal allegations and the Maduna affair were both major failures and should be major embarrassments to the ANC. I am aware of certain members of the Government who are discomforted by the anti-democratic and empty democratic actions of their members, and more than a few are appalled by the backward step taken by South Africa.
The accountability of the executive to Parliament was, in the case of Scopa, stood on its head. The committee became accountable to the Ministers instead of the other way round. In the case of the Maduna affair the executive was in effect found not to be accountable at all.
In one case parliamentary oversight was in the hands of the hon Andrew Feinstein. In the other case it was in the hands of the hon Andries Nel. The difference between Andrew and Andries is that Andrew was widely recognised as being a man of independence and unimpeachable integrity. He had to be got rid of. Andries on the other hand was someone who was recognised as being a loyal apparatchik who would do what he was instructed. [Interjections.] Andrew is gone and Andries remains. I wonder if the hon Mr Nel enjoyed Robert Kirby’s assessment of him, ``an odious and smug African National Congress flunky!’’ What a tosspot!
The ANC’s attitude towards independent organs of state is instructive. When it suits them they pay obeisance, when it does not suit them they simply ignore these organs. The so-called Nel Committee took more than a year to come to the conclusion that nothing could be done about Minister Maduna. And they did so on specious grounds.
One of these grounds was to quote selectively from the De Lille case and to ignore certain words in an endeavour to change the meaning of the findings. The National Assembly must understand that the Chief Justice did not find that we cannot take steps against a member. The Chief Justice found that Parliament could not suspend an MP’s membership or ban them from attending other than in the course of restoring order in the House. He did not find that we cannot reprimand a member.
To use this judgment as a pretext for failure to act is therefore not tenable. And of course there is a serious difference between the case of the hon Patricia De Lille and that of Minister Maduna. She was subjected to jungle justice by a committee of this House, and I am proud to say, against the protests of the whole opposition. Minister Maduna was found by the Public Protector to have violated the Constitution. Even members of the ANC should be able to admit that there is a difference. [Interjections.]
The other pretext that the ANC used to protect the Minister was to say that the Public Protector was wrong in stating that the Minister had not withdrawn his remarks. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member would you take your seat, please. We have a point of order.
Mr P A C HENDRICKSE: Madam Speaker, is it in order for the person at the podium to refer to the findings of a parliamentary committee as ``jungle justice’’? [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam, the hon member should refer to the Judge Klopper court finding, and then he will know about it. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Gibson! [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: I withdraw the remark. I want to quote from a letter which the Minister wrote to the Speaker on 19 August 1998. And he said as follows:
To the extent that the aforesaid committee has found that I breached the Rule …
He did not say - ``I am sorry for what I said’’.
To the extent that … I breached the Rule …
That was the parliamentary Rule -
… I hereby withdraw the relevant remarks unconditionally and apologise to you and to the National Assembly.
Then he went on to say:
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the substance and veracity of the remarks complained of will be dealt with appropriately by and before the Public Protector.
That is what he was saying then. He was still saying to the Speaker that there was veracity and truth in his remarks. The truth of the matter is that at that time he had known for more than a year that his remarks were untrue and uncalled for. But he still wrote to the Speaker in those terms.
It is quite clear that the hon Minister did not withdraw or apologise for the constitutional violation, even though he had known for 14 months that it was such. The effrontery of the hon Minister knows no bounds. He wanted to be pardoned for his breach of the Rule of the House, but he still pretended to the House that there was a basis of veracity to his remarks.
When the ANC majority decided that the Public Protector was wrong in his conclusion, I requested that committee to refer to the Public Protector for clarification of his remarks - it would have been quite simple to do so. Significantly, the hon Mr Nel declined to agree. Even more significant was that during the days of the hearings when the Public Protector appeared before this very committee, not one of those members who were going to use this as a fig leaf put that question to him.
Hon members will not know that there was a minority report which was drawn up by me and which was subsequently assented to by six opposition parties. The opposition saw right through the ANC stratagem and wished to report to the House in a minority report. Mr Nel ruled that that was contrary to the Rules of Parliament. I call upon the hon Dullah Omar to come back - all is forgiven. [Interjections.] My colleague the hon Raenette Taljaard of Scopa has raised the possible unconstitutionality of the Rule with the Speaker. That is as may be.
It is of significance that the opposition of this country, representing almost one voter in three, has a view diametrically opposed to that of ANC members who decided that they could do nothing to Minister Maduna. The whole opposition united around the idea that the Public Protector’s report had to be taken seriously, and that an appropriate punishment for Minister Maduna had to be considered. We did not want to hang him, we did not even want to fine him. We proposed that he should appear in the House, that he should be reprimanded for being in violation of the Constitution, and that he should be given an opportunity to apologise unreservedly for his breach of the Constitution. Even that merest little tap on the wrist was too much for the ANC - they wanted the Minister to get off scot-free.
It concerns me mightily that the Minister has cost the taxpayer a fortune. He has cost us R30 million for this enquiry and for his legal fees. [Interjections.] He knew within days of making his statement in Parliament in 1997 that the allegations were incorrect and untrue. But instead of being big enough to take the first opportunity to put matters right, he allowed all of this taxpayer’s money to be wasted.
To him R30 million is nothing. To those of us who work with the voters at grass-roots level in the townships and in the suburbs R30 million is a fortune. [Interjections.] Vir die mense daar buite is R30 miljoen ‘n fortuin. [To the people out there R30 million is a fortune.] It is disgraceful to waste the taxpayer’s money in this way. This hon Minister has not even said sorry. Does he have no shame at all? [Interjections.]
The Minister allowed Parliament’s previous committee to go ahead for a year before he withdrew his remarks for the purposes of the breach of the Rules. During the course of that hearing, he instructed his legal adviser … [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, would you take your seat, please.
Mr N J GOGOTYA: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: We find it difficult to hear what is being said, because of the rent-a-crowd in the gallery that is making a noise. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! All members of the House are making sure that the debate is not being heard. I do not think that you should blame the public gallery. Let us look at our own conduct first. [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, during the course of the proceedings of the previous committee …
The SPEAKER: Order! Mr Gibson, will you take your seat.
Mr M M CHIKANE: Madam Speaker, will the speaker take a question?
The SPEAKER: Order! Will you take a question, hon member?
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, as soon as I finish my speech, I will be delighted to take a question. [Interjections.]
During the course of the previous parliamentary committee dealing with the breach of the Rules, that hon Minister instructed his legal adviser to apply for a recusal of hon members of this House on the grounds that they were biased against him. He still has not apologised to them. That was done in bad faith and he still has not apologised for that. [Interjections.] The Minister only admitted to the Public Protector a year after he had made the statements in Parliament that he realised that they were not true.
I want to ask whether we can afford to have a person occupying the senior portfolio of Justice and Constitutional Development who is in violation of the Constitution. [Interjections.] He has a major hand in selecting judges, he regulates our courts, and he has enormous powers that affect the whole of South Africa and all our people. If he has to be reminded of his personal integrity, and if he cares so little about his constitutional duty, how can this violator of the Constitution be the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development? [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mnu M A MZIZI: Somlomo, angibonge ukuthola leli thuba. Okokuqala mangixolise ukuthi uzakwethu owayesimele kuleli komidi uPhrof Ndabandaba akaphumelelanga ukuza namhlanje. Uthathwe umsebenzi ukuthi abe ngasePitoli ngokwekomidi alisebenzelayo. Njengozakwethu ube-ke esenginxusa ukuthi ngizozwakalisa ilaka ngokweqembu lethu.
Amalungu ezokhumbula ukuthi lolu daba lusuka le onyakeni ka-1996 lapho uNgqongqoshe wezomThetho nokuThuthukiswa komThethosisekelo, wayesenguNgqongqoshe wezimBiwa. Kumnandi ukukhuluma ngomunye umuntu kodwa kubuhlungu uma sekukhulunywa ngawe. Ngiyethemba ukuthi ukhona otolikayo. Amalungu ahloniphekile azokhumbula ukuthi uNgqongqoshe uPenuell Maduna wayekhuluma kuyo le Ndlu yesiShayamthetho ngento eyayenzeka laphayana kulowo mnyango ayewuphethe ngaleso sikhathi. Imali okwakukhulunywa ngayo kwakuyizigidi zamaRandi eziyi-13. Kwasishaqisa sonke ukuzwa uma kwethulwa leyo nkulumo yokuthi leyo mali yakhwabaniswa. Ekuhambeni kwesikhathi kwatholakala ukuthi ngesikhathi uNgqongqoshe ethula leyo nkulumo, ucwaningo nophenyo lwalusaqhubeka lungakaphothulwa. Kuyezwakala ukuthi ekugcineni kuthe uma seluphothuliwe lolo daba uNgqongqoshe esenikezwa umbiko, wahoxisa. Amagama ayeyizigwegwana wawasusa enkulumeni ayeyethulile.
Ngiyavuma nami ukuthi uma umuntu onile kuyaye kufuneke ukuthi ajeziswe. Kodwa-ke uma umuntu onile bese eyihoxisa inkulumo ayenzile, kudingeke ngani ukuthi ame esidlangaleni axolise? Mina ngokwami ukubona, umuntu uma ehoxisile, inkulumo yakhe yokuhoxisa izwakala kakhulu kunokuba eme esidlangaleni. Ngaphandle-ke kwabakholwayo bona okuye kube khona ukuyovuma, lapho umuntu eya kuMfundisi ayoxolisa kuye, athi: Bengicela ungixolele. [Ihlombe.]
Yinto lena eyenzeka esikhathini osekukudala sedlule. Esehoxisile uNgqongqoshe, umVikeli womPhakathi naye wadonselwa esigcawini ukuthi aphawule ngalolu daba. Waphawula kwatholakala izinto ezenzeka. Eseze wahoxisa uNgqongqoshe, kwatholakala ukuthi iPhalamende nalo kufuneka libe nekomidi lesikhashana elingase lilandele lolo daba olwalwethulwe ezithebeni zalo. IPhalamende laba-ke nekomidi lesikhashana elaliholwa nguye uMnu Nel. Sebengijikijela ngamatshe! Mawabe kahle lawo malungu ahloniphekile. [Uhleko.]
UMnu Nel wathatha isikhathi, nebala. Sikhuluma lapha ngodaba oseluqede unyaka noma ngaphezulu. Wazibeka izizathu ezadala ukuthi angakwenzi lokho ngaleso sikhathi. Esinye sezincomo ezenziwe yilelo komidi elaliholwa nguMnu Nel, ngukuthi ikomidi lelo alikwazi ukwenza izincomo ezingeza ePhalamende zokuthi linxuse le Ndlu ukuthi mayidonse uNgqongqoshe uPenuel Maduna ukuze azoxolisa, ngoba sewawahoxisa amagama ayewenzile. Okungenani banxusa ukuthi lolu daba maluphindiselwe kumakomidi, kungaba ngelezezimali, elezimbiwa namandla noma leli elibhekele izimali zomphakathi. Yibona-ke abangahlahla indlela eya phambili ukuze kutholakale isixazululo uma ngabe kusekhona okusilele. Kutholakele ukuthi ngokomthetho owabekwa yiNkantolo yomThethosisekelo, leli Phalamende lingeke lijezise uNgqongqoshe noma ilungu lale Ndlu. Asikubheke-ke lokhu, sikubuke kabili.
Yebo, siyazi bakhulumile ngelungu elihloniphekile uPatricia de Lille ngodaba olwenzeka. Yebo, kwakushaqisa kona. Sonke sashaqeka ukuthi uma eseze wahoxisa, yini kuze kuthiwe makube nekomidi futhi elizobheka udaba lwakhe. Kowa lokho-ke sekwalungiswa. Ngabe siqonde ukuthi makuthi lelo phutha esalenza laze layonqandwa yinkantolo yathi: hhayi phela seniwedlulisile amandla enu, masibuye silenze futhi namanje, siphinde siyotshelwa yinkantolo ukuthi sesonile futhi, senza obekungafanele sikwenze?
Benginxusa, egameni le-IFP, ngokuthi: ``to err is human, peace is divine.’’ Sonke siyawenza amaphutha, kepha ukuxolela kungokoMdali. (Translation of Zulu speech follows.)
[Mr M A MZIZI: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for this opportunity and to apologise for my colleague Prof Ndabandaba who is unable to be here today. He is the one who usually represents us in this committee. He is in Pretoria due to the work of the committee for which he is working. As a colleague, he asked me to come here to express the view of our party.
Hon members will remember the issue that arose in 1996 when the hon the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development was the Minister of Minerals and Energy. It is nice to talk about a person, but it hurts when people talk about one. I hope that my speech is being interpreted. Hon members will remember when Minister Penuell Maduna spoke in this House about something that happened in his department. The amount of money that was being discussed was R30 million. Many of us were shocked to hear that such an amount of money had been misappropriated. As time went on, it became clear that the hon the Minister had announced that while the investigation was still continuing. We were told that after the investigation, the hon the Minister withdrew some of the words that he had said. He withdrew irritating words that he had used in his speech.
I am of the opinion that once a person has transgressed, he should be punished. What is the need to apologise in public when a person has already withdrawn his words? As a far as I am concerned, when a person withdraws his words, his speech when he withdraws his words sounds better that his speech when he apologises in public. It is understandable for Christians, as they are expected to apologise to the priest when they have sinned, by saying: ``Father, please forgive me’’. [Applause.]
This happened a long time ago. After the hon the Minister had apologised, the Public Protector was called to the public interview and asked to comment on this issue. In his comments he explained what had happened. When the hon the Minister had withdrawn his words, Parliament was expected to set up an interim committee that would follow up the matter. Then an interim committee that was chaired by Mr Nel was set up. [Interjections.] They are throwing stones at me! Those hon members must hold on. [Laughter.]
Mr Nel took time to respond. We are talking here about the issue that lasted for one and a half year. One of the recommendations made by Mr Nel and his committee, was that his committee could not ask Parliament to call on Minister Maduna to withdraw his words, because he had already done so. They then asked for the issue to be taken to three committees, the Committees on Finance, Minerals and Energy and Public Accounts. They were the ones who could provide a way forward so as to find a solution if there was something still amiss. It was found that according to the law that was passed by the Constitutional Court, this Parliament could not punish the hon the Minister or any member of this House. Let us now look at these two points.
Yes, we know, they talked about the hon Patricia de Lille regarding what happened. It was shocking indeed. We were all shocked about why a committee was set up when a man had already withdrawn his words. That issue has already been rectified. Are we challenging the court which said: ``Oh, you have overstepped the limits?’’ Are we saying we should overstepped the limits again? Do we want to be told by the court again that we have transgressed by doing what we were not supposed to do?
In the name of the IFP, I would like to say: ``To err is human, to forgive divine.’’ We all make mistakes, however, to forgive is for God.]
Mr D M BAKKER: Madam Speaker, we are today debating a matter that should actually never have been on the agenda of a democratic parliament. There are two main reasons why I am saying this. In the first place one would not have expected a Minister of state to falsely accuse a Chapter 9 institution like the Auditor-General of cooking the books. Instead of resolving this issue with the Auditor-General directly, or referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, he resorted to a public forum - Parliament - to air his views in this regard and to show his lack of knowledge.
Even when the Minister knew he had been wrong, he still found reason to speak in an uncomplimentary manner about the Auditor-General at a press briefing two months later. Although the Minister was aware within days that his claim was false, he preferred to enter into an unprecedented public slanging match, and said that he could not be bothered to correct reports and impressions. He said the media interpreted things in many weird ways and he could not be bothered about what the media said.
According to him, his only sin in this bizarre conflict with the Auditor- General was to ask very clumsy questions of the Auditor-General in Parliament. The Public Protector found the conduct of the Minister to be unacceptable and stated that even if the facts showed that the Auditor- General’s office had done something wrong, which the facts did not show, the Minister should have used the proper channels and acted in a manner which was procedurally correct.
The result of the Minister’s failure to address his lack of knowledge through the proper channels was an investigation by the Public Protector that cost the taxpayer in excess of R30 million. If the Minister was a director of any company in the world that took a R30 million loss because of his absurd actions, he would have been fired. The question that needs to be answered is whether a person that wastes more than R30 million of the money of the taxpayers, who are the shareholders of the state, is suitable for public office?
My second reason for saying that this debate should never have been on the agenda of a democratic parliament is that one would have expected the hon the President to have intervened long before this debate reached the agenda of Parliament. A Cabinet Minister is appointed by the President and can only be dismissed by the President, but must act in accordance with the Constitution.
When a Chapter 9 institution then finds, as the Public Protector has done, that a Minister violated the spirit of the Constitution by not upholding its principles and prescripts, one would have expected in a constitutional state that the hon the President, who is responsible, as head of state in terms of the Constitution, for upholding, defending and respecting the Constitution, would act against the Minister who violated the spirit of our Constitution.
In plaas daarvan dat daar teen die Minister opgetree is, is hy bevorder tot die sleutelposisie van Minister van Justisie en Grondwetlike Ontwikkeling. In hierdie posisie is hy nou die politieke hoof van die regstelsel van ons land. Dié amp vereis dat hy bo agterdog verhewe moet wees, ook deursigtig moet wees en berekend moet optree. Die agb Minister skiet, wat al drie hierdie vereistes betref, ver te kort, en hy het dit weer eens verlede jaar bevestig met sy ongevraagde, skandalige aanval in die Parlement op die agb Dene Smuts oor seks oor die kleurgrens. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Sekerlik as ‘n direkte gevolg van die feit dat die agb Minister Maduna wegkom met hierdie tipe afbrekende uitlatings, sien ons nou hoe sy groot vriend, die agb Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit, in sy voetspore volg met totaal afkeurenswaardige uitlatings oor die Portugese gemeenskap en oor vroue. Die vraag is: Wat is volgende?
Ons agb President verkondig wêreldwyd ‘n Afrika-renaissance, wat hy beskou as dié uitdaging van ons tyd, en hieroor sê hy op 5 Oktober 2000 in Accra, en ek haal aan:
Of critical importance is that we should have a leadership that is committed to defending the interests of our people, a leadership that has turned its back from corrupt practices and abuse of power for self- interest. We have at all times to demonstrate deep levels of seriousness and urgency in all we do, and avoid the casual approach and a belief that things will happen on their own.
Met lighartige en belaglike aanhalings soos dié van die agb Ministers Maduna en Tshwete, in skrille kontras met die President se woorde, sal niemand ooit die ernstige aard en dringendheid van die uitdagings van ons tyd verstaan nie. Die ANC beskuldig gereeld die opposisie dat ons nie patrioties is nie en dat die beeld van Suid-Afrika wat ons uitdra nie positief genoeg is nie. Watter beeld dra ‘n agb Minister uit deur die gees van ons Grondwet te verkrag? Wat kan die opposisie doen wat erger is as dít? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Instead of action being taken against the Minister, he was promoted to the key position of Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development. In this position he is now the political head of the legal system of our country. This position requires that he be above suspicion, and also that he be transparent and act in a calculating manner. The hon the Minister is sadly lacking in respect of all three of these requirements, and he proved this once again last year with his uncalled-for, scandalous attack in Parliament on the hon Dene Smuts about sex across the colour line. [Interjections.]
Surely as a direct result of the fact that the hon Minister Maduna gets away with this type of destructive remark, we now see his dear friend, the hon the Minister of Safety and Security, following in his footsteps with totally reprehensible remarks about the Portuguese community and about women. The question is: What next?
The hon the President is proclaiming, throughout the world, an African Renaissance, which he regards as the challenge of our time, and about which he said the following on 5 October 2000 in Accra, and I quote:
Of critical importance is that we should have a leadership that is committed to defending the interests of our people, a leadership that has turned its back from corrupt practices and abuse of power for self- interest. We have at all times to demonstrate deep levels of seriousness and urgency in all we do, and avoid the casual approach and a belief that things will happen on their own. With lighthearted and ridiculous quotations such as those of the hon Ministers Maduna and Tshwete, in stark contrast to the President’s words, no one will ever comprehend the serious nature and urgency of the challenges of our time. The ANC regularly accuses the opposition of not being patriotic, and claims that the image of South Africa that we convey is not positive enough. What image is an hon Minister conveying by violating the spirit of our Constitution? What can the opposition do that is worse than this?]
It is not necessary for me to repeat how the hon the Minister violated the Constitution. The Public Protector has proved that in an excellent manner in his comprehensive report. What is, however, absolutely remarkable about the Public Protector’s report, is that it goes beyond his terms of reference, adopted by the National Assembly, to report on whether the reports of the Auditor-General were correct and proper. Whilst answering this request by the National Assembly, the Public Protector felt duty- bound, obviously because of the excessive conduct of the Minister in his attack on the Auditor-General, to recommend that Parliament make a pronouncement regarding the accountability of the Minister and any possible sanction that Parliament might consider appropriate. The Public Protector, having full regard to the fact that the Minister had already been found guilty of transgressing Rule 99 of the Standing Rules of Parliament, found that the violation of the spirit of the Constitution by the Minister was so serious that he regarded it proper for Parliament to act thereon.
Mr G B D McINTOSH: Where is the Minister? [Interjections.]
Mr D M BAKKER: One would have expected Parliament to regard the request of a Chapter 9 institution seriously and to deal with this request in a proper manner. Instead, we ended up with an ANC-dominated committee, the so-called Nel Committee, or as the hon Jannie Momberg referred to it, the ``the ANC’s Protected Generals Committee’’, which went out of its way to find excuses to exonerate the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] In other words, the ANC’s own protected generals committee, headed by the ANC’s own protected general, Andries Nel, has found a way to protect the ANC’s own Minister, and it does not matter what damage he caused. [Interjections.]
The New NP and the DA did not support this report. We are left with the feeling that the Public Protector’s time and effort were wasted and his proposals ridiculed. The voting cattle of the ANC adhered to ``his master’s voice’’. [Applause.]
Adv S P HOLOMISA: Madam Speaker, hon members, if the people of South Africa were dependent entirely on press reports and the utterances of the opposition for information relating to the work of this Parliament and Government, they would be a most ignorant and ill-informed public. [Applause.]
The truth and the facts are not allowed to stand in the way of sensational stories and clever political sound bites. This distortion of the true purpose of the work of this ad hoc committee and of the mandate given by Parliament to the Public Protector has been so sustained and deliberate that it would not be surprising if some of the hon members of this House thought that investigations conducted by the two bodies were on how Minister Maduna should be punished for his statements relating to the then Auditor-General. Fortunately, the public has the ANC at its disposal to give it the correct information.
The truth of the matter is that the investigations were not about Minister Maduna, but about the allegations of irregularities in the affairs and financial statements of the Strategic Fuel Fund Association and the Central Energy Fund. These facts are all, of course, contained in the report we are presenting to the House.
The confusion surrounding Minister Maduna’s role in the whole matter emanates from the Public Protector’s concern for the protection of the dignity of what are called ``Chapter 9 institutions’’ such as the commissions and the offices of the Auditor-General and the Public Protector. He used his prerogative and went beyond the National Assembly’s terms of reference to examine the question of whether or not the Minister had violated the Constitution by questioning the Auditor-General’s motive with regard to the so-called accounting loss amounting to the sum of R170 million.
As is by now well known, the Public Protector found that the Minister had violated the spirit of the Constitution, more so when it turned out that the loss of the sum in question was not a physical loss, but an accounting loss occasioned by an undisclosed change in accounting policy. The Public Protector went on to recommend that some form of censure be applied against Minister Maduna. Believing that a mere apology on the part of the Minister would not be enough, he nonethelesss failed to suggest the form which such censure should take, due, inter alia, to the fact that he knew that the law permitted for no such censure in the circumstances.
Hon members will recall that this House had set up a committee to consider the implications of the Minister’s statement when he first questioned the motives of the Auditor-General. That committee reported to the National Assembly that the Minister’s remarks were unparliamentary. The Speaker duly called upon him to apologise and to withdraw the remarks. The Minister rose, tendered his apology and unreservedly withdrew the offending remarks. In the view of the House, the Speaker, and significantly, the hon Gibson of the DP, that was the end of the matter: Minister Maduna had been properly censured by the National Assembly.
Now a reading of the Public Protector’s report reveals that the Public Protector made a material error in that, whilst he accepted that the Minister had apologised, he thought that he had not retracted the remarks that were found to be unparliamentary. We can thus surmise that the reason the Public Protector suggested that something more than an apology be considered was his misapprehension that the remarks remained unretracted. The Public Protector nevertheless found that the Minister was, at all times, acting in good faith as he had no personal gripe with the Auditor- General.
In the course of performing the task that he was called upon to perform, the Public Protector did establish that, indeed, there were irregularities relating to the manner in which the affairs and financial statements of the SFF Association were conducted. He went on to suggest certain ways by which these irregularities could be avoided in future. We support his recommendations in this regard.
We have had to deal with the extraneous matter of what to do with regard to the violation of the spirit of the Constitution by the Minister, a matter which had been finalised by this House, as has been pointed out before. The Public Protector himself points out that there are no legal provisions, either in statutory law or in the Constitution, for the types of sanctions to be applied in the event of a violation of the relevant sections of the Constitution in the matter at hand.
Whilst we agree with him in this respect, we however do not share his view that this constitutes a weakness in the Constitution. We could not have expected the Constitution itself to provide for more than it does - that is a matter for other pieces of legislation that will ensure mutual respect and support for all organs of state. The ANC, accordingly, supports the ad hoc committee’s recommendation that the matter of the absence of legal sanctions be referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and report, and for submission to the Constitutional Review Committee.
The components of the Democratic Alliance in this House and the hon De Lille of the PAC, with the help of some sections of the press, have been baying for Minister Maduna’s blood, saying that he be variously brought before the ad hoc committee to answer for his conduct, pay a fine of R10 000, be hauled before the Speaker in the National Assembly for a reprimand or be dismissed from Cabinet. This is mischievous in the extreme. [Interjections.]
First of all, as we have said repeatedly, Minister Maduna was duly censured in terms of the Rules of this House, and he was called upon to apologise and to retract the offending remarks. Secondly, and most importantly, the ad hoc committee was not constituted as a disciplinary committee which could have entertained the fantastic ideas of our opponents.
Even if we had been mandated to discipline Minister Maduna, we could not have done more than what the first committee did, which was to call on the Minister to apologise and to withdraw his remarks. As Parliament, we are powerless to do more than that, and as the ANC, we respect the courts of the land and the Constitution.
In the matter of The Speaker of the National Assembly vs De Lille and Another, the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment by the late Chief Justice Mahomed states that anything not authorised by law cannot be considered valid, and anyone whose rights are violated by such conduct is entitled to the protection of the courts. This case, as hon members know, dealt with the matter of the suspension of the hon De Lille by this House after she had apologised for and withdrawn unsubstantiated allegations against members of this House. The circumstances of the present case fall within the ambit of the reasoning behind the judgment. This is the case, regardless of how much the hon De Lille screams and raves to the contrary.
The late Chief Justice Mahomed said, and I quote:
No Parliament, however bona fide or eminent its membership, no President, however formidable be his reputation or scholarship, and no official, however efficient or well-meaning, can make any law or perform any act which is not sanctioned by the Constitution.
In addition to these words, we maintain that no member of the opposition, however vocal or cantankerous, however much he or she dislikes Minister Maduna or the ANC, and no newspaper articles, however venomous their attacks or wide their circulation, will sway the ANC from its commitment to the rule of law, fair play and the transformation of the land for the benefit of all its people. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
In conclusion, I wish to commend Comrade Andries Nel for the able manner in which he presided over the proceedings of the committee. [Laughter.] [Applause.] He even managed to keep the DP in check, and gave it no room to run away or walk out … [Laughter] [Applause.] … as it is wont to do when it cannot get its way. Madam Speaker, we commend this report to you and this hon House. [Applause.]
Mr M E MABETA: Madam Speaker, hon members of Parliament and members of the public here, we are participating in this debate today mindful of the fact that ordinary South Africans who have sent us to this Parliament are intensely interested in a number of questions central to this debate. For example, what is the political role and responsibility of our Cabinet Ministers in the transformation of our country?
What is the nature of the Strategic Fuel Fund in terms of this transformation? What is the history of the SFF when we look at these matters? What is the departmental accountability that this responsibility entails and what is the desirable tension and balance between that political responsibility and constitutional guidelines for the actions of Cabinet Ministers?
Were the Minister’s remarks about the institution itself or the end result of the functions of the Auditor-General? Would it be an abdication of duty if the Minister had kept silent with regard to the R170 million and the SFF’s activities? Would the Constitutional Court be of the view that the Minister had compromised the integrity of these institutions?
What exactly is the spirit of section 181 of the Constitution? Are Chapter 9 institutions above the law? What are the implications of the Public Protector’s remarks on page 148, paragraphs (d),(f) and (g)? These are nonpartisan considerations that interest ordinary South African men and women and they do not need the press to decipher or explain these issues to them.
The UDM takes note of the fact that the Public Protector’s findings and recommendations with respect to Minister Maduna’s statements against the Auditor-General took into account the Minister’s apology with regard to breaching Parliament’s Rule 99, now Rule 66. We also take note of the Public Protector’s conclusion that the Minister’s remarks violated sections 181 and 41 of the Constitution, which require all spheres and organs of state within its sphere not only to co-operate but to do so in a manner that respects all mutual constitutional obligations towards each other.
The absence of any specified sanctions for the transgressions of sections 181 and 41 in our Constitution does not relieve members of the Cabinet from their collective or individual accountability, and therefore Parliament, in our view, must make a pronouncement regarding the accountability of the Minister and any possible censure.
We strongly believe that the R30 million legal costs incurred by taxpayers as a result of the Minister’s ill-timed and misplaced statements must be seen against the background of irregularities and mismanagement in the Ministry that go beyond 1994. We reject the majority party’s view that Parliament is powerless to do anything about the conduct and statements made by members of Government in violation of our Constitution, but we fully support the recommendation made by the Public Protector, especially the conclusion that Parliament must make a pronouncement. [Interjections.]
I would like, in conclusion, to state that it would be advisable if in future the Minister would not make bold statements on matters which have not been conclusively proved. The spirit of corporate governance compels the executive to take heed of certain constitutional requirements, but because we have the separation of powers, the matter of the Minister concerned must be raised with the executive which, if it fails to take action, may refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. [Interjections.]
Parliament must pass a motion raising concern. We cannot allow this institution to emasculate itself and divest itself of its mandate simply because the executive wishes us to do so in disregard of the will of the people to whom it is accountable. There is no doubt that the manner in which the Public Protector’s report was written has raised a number of questions which Parliament has not been able to clarify or successfully address.
Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, hon Ministers and members, the ACDP is in full agreement with the minority position on the report that the ad hoc committee has failed in its recommendations to keep the Minister appropriately accountable to the public. [Interjections.] Our Constitution is explicit about recognising our public organs as national assets that are constitutionally protected. Our Constitution ensures that no more will the South African nation be subjected to authoritarian rule. Our people now have recourse to public institutions - Chapter 9 institutions - to protect their rights and freedoms. The Public Protector is the people’s instrument to hold Parliament accountable for its conduct and for the rules and laws it makes. We as public representatives must be held accountable for our actions.
The ACDP commends the Public Protector for the great contribution he has made to our country’s democracy. Members in this House ought to remember that we are all democratically elected representatives. This principle does not cease once elections are over. All committees, even ad hoc committees, operate under the discipline of our constitutional democracy. Unfortunately the ad hoc committee, in this instance, has not accurately adopted the correct approach, as recommended by the Public Protector.
The ACDP supports the principle of accountability that underscores the recommendation of the Public Protector with regard to the Minister’s unconstitutional behaviour. It recommends that the legislature bring the Minister to order for his unconstitutional conduct against the office of the Auditor-General.
The ACDP accepts that the Minister has apologised and retracted his remarks in this House, and we commend him for this. [Interjections.] [Applause.] However, his actions cost the taxpayer R30 million, which could have been used much more productively, and an apology is therefore needed to the public for wasting taxpayer’s money.
Dr C P MULDER: Mev die Speaker, ek wou vanmiddag begin het deur die agb Minister geluk te wens met sy teenwoordigheid, dat hy die moed aan die dag lê om die debat by te woon. Dit is jammer dat hy tans nie meer in die Raad is nie, as ek reg kyk. Ek dink dit sou verstandig gewees het om óf die hele debat by te woon, óf die hele debat glad nie by te woon nie. Dit is jammer dat hy moes gaan.
Die gebeure wat ons vandag debatteer, het hul oorsprong gehad in die Vraetyd in die Parlement. Dit het gegaan oor die Minister se bewerings dat ‘n moontlike verlies van R170 miljoen aangeteken is. Die probleem het verder ontstaan deurdat die Minister sekere aantygings sou gemaak het van die beweerde bedekking van hierdie verlies van R170 miljoen deur die destydse Ouditeur-generaal, mnr Henri Kluever.
Nou ontstaan die vraag onmiddellik: hoekom het die Minister op daardie dag hierdie aantygings in die Raad gemaak? Agb lede sal onthou, as hulle terugdink aan daardie Vraetyd, dat die Minister op sy stukke was. Op Afrikaans sou ons sê hy was daardie dag ‘n ramkat. Hy het gegaan vir die Ouditeur-generaal.
Hoekom het die agb Minister dit gedoen? U sal onthou dat in die weke gedurende die aanloop tot hierdie gebeure die Ouditeur-generaal verskeie verslae uitgebring het, waarin hy, om dit sagkens te stel, beweer het dit sou sleg wees vir die ANC-regering as dit aan die lig kom. Minister Maduna wou op daardie dag terugkap na die Ouditeur-generaal, want laasgenoemde was immers nog ‘n aanstelling uit die vorige bedeling. Daarom het hy voluit gegaan vir die Ouditeur-generaal daardie dag.
Dit is net hier waar die agb Minister se oordeel hom in die steek gelaat het, want toe gaan hy vir mnr Kluever. Dit het gelei tot die besluit van die Nasionale Vergadering op 21 Augustus 1997, wat onder andere die opdrag gegee het dat die beweerde onreëlmatighede met betrekking tot die state van finansiële instellings verder ondersoek moes word. Die klem van daardie hele opdrag was egter gemik op die Ouditeur-generaal, en nie op die Minister nie.
Wat die ANC egter in hierdie proses nie kon voorsien nie, toe hulle as die meerderheid daardie dag die besluit in die Raad geneem het om hierdie ondersoek te laat plaasvind, was die inhoud van die verslag van die Openbare Beskermer. Hy het bevind dat die Minister strydig met die gees van die Grondwet opgetree het, en dit so ernstig geag het dat hy gesê het ‘n blote apologie sou nie voldoende wees nie.
My probleem met die ANC, en ek het dit vandag weer gesien, is dat daar telkens geleenthede is waar die ANC ‘n keuse moet maak tussen wat reg is en wat nie noodwendig reg is nie en wat verkeerd is, en telkens word die keuse verkeerd uitgeoefen. Ná die besetting van die plase in Zimbabwe is ook die verkeerde opsie uitgeoefen. Met die wapentransaksie en die betrokkenheid van regter Heath en sy eenheid, is ook die verkeerde opsie uitgeoefen. Met die uitlatings oor die effektiwiteit van die druk op die Zimbabwese regbank het die ANC weer eens die verkeerde opsie uitgeoefen.
Vandag gaan die ANC heen en oefen weer eens die verkeerde opsie uit deur die agb Minister te beskerm. Hierdie agb Minister - en ek is jammer hy is nie vandag in die Raad nie - word myns insiens binne die ANC geoormerk vir groter dinge op die pad vorentoe. Hy skep egter die indruk dat hy aanmekaar omstrede is en dergelike situasies is nie tot sy voordeel nie. In sy afwesigheid wil ek aan die agb Minister sê: ``If you stay out there long enough, there is no place to hide’’. [As ‘n mens lank genoeg daar buite bly, dan is daar later nêrens oor om weg te kruip nie.] Ek is van mening dat die agb Minister tans reeds by daardie punt verby is. Ons sal die verslag nie steun nie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, I wanted to start this afternoon by congratulating the hon the Minister on his presence, for having the courage to attend the debate. It is a pity that he is now no longer in the House, if my eyes are not deceiving me. I think it would have been sensible either to attend the whole debate or not attend the debate at all. It is a pity that he had to leave.
The events that we are debating here this afternoon had their origin during Question Time in Parliament. They concerned the Minister’s allegations that there had been a possible loss of R170 million. The problem further arose because the Minister made certain allegations to the effect that the then Auditor-General, Mr Henri Kluever, had concealed this loss of R170 million.
The question immediately arises: Why did the Minister make those allegations in the House on that day? Hon members will recall, when they cast their minds back to that Question Time, that the Minister was in great form. In Afrikaans one could say he was ``‘n ramkat’’ [faring extremely well]. He went for the Auditor-General.
Why did the hon the Minister do that? Hon members will remember that in the weeks leading up to these events the Auditor-General published several reports, in which, to put it mildly, he alleged that it would be undesirable for the ANC Government if their contents were to become public knowledge. On that day Minister Maduna wanted to hit back at the Auditor- General, because the latter was, after all, still an appointment from the previous dispensation. That is why he went all out for the Auditor-General that day.
It is right here that the hon the Minister’s judgment left him in the lurch, because he went for Mr Kluever. This led to the decision on 21 August 1997 by the National Assembly, which, inter alia, issued the instruction that the alleged irregularities relating to the statements of financial institutions should be further investigated. The emphasis of that whole instruction was aimed at the Auditor-General, however, and not the Minister.
What the ANC could not, however, foresee in this entire process, when they, as the majority, took the decision in the House that day to allow this investigation to take place, was the content of the report of the Public Protector. He found that the Minister had acted contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and deemed this to be so serious that he said a mere apology would be insufficient.
My problem with the ANC, and I saw this again today, is that time and again there are occasions when the ANC must choose between what is right and what is not necessarily right and what is wrong, and time and again the wrong choice is made. After the occupation of farms in Zimbabwe the wrong option was also chosen. With the arms transaction and the involvement of Judge Heath and his unit once again the wrong option was chosen. With the comments concerning the effectiveness of the pressure on the judiciary of Zimbabwe, the ANC once again chose the wrong option.
Today the ANC went ahead and once again made the wrong choice by protecting the hon the Minister. This hon Minister - and I regret that he is not in the House today - has in my view been identified for greater things within the ANC on the road ahead. He creates the impression, however, that he is constantly controversial and such situations are not to his advantage. In his absence I want to say to the Minister: ``If you stay out there long enough, there is no place to hide.’’ I am of the view that the hon the Minister has already gone beyond that point. We shall not support the report.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker and hon members, it is very important that this matter be laid to rest once and for all. It has taken rather too long and has surely sapped the energy of those affected. We in the UCDP maintain that the findings and recommendations of the Public Protector have to be upheld.
There is no doubt that the hon the Minister erred, as he has accepted, in expressing himself as he did when referring to an incumbent of a Chapter 9 institution, namely the Auditor-General. We accept that there is freedom of speech for members of Parliament. We also accept that there are limitations to all rights, and we maintain that the Minister should have known better than to say what he said. The Constitution states clearly in section 181(4), and I quote:
No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of these institutions.
We maintain that an example has to be set in order to deter others from following such untoward conduct.
The whole exercise is exacerbated by the fact that the issue involves a Minister of state, who swore or affirmed that he undertook to hold office as Minister with honour and dignity. We maintain that the manner in which the hon the Minister handled this issue under discussion was far from being honourable, let alone dignified.
Section 2(a)(i) of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act of 1998 stipulates that Cabinet Ministers should, at all times, act in the best interest of good governance and that it is expected of them not to act in a way that may compromise the credibility or integrity of their office or of Government. The hon the Minister has unfortunately not been able to live up to these requirements.
We may boast of having the most progressive Constitution under the sun and the best legislation this side of the Atlantic. But if we do not act in accordance with those legislative instruments, they are not worth the papers they are written on. [Interjections.]
Someone has to take responsibility for the man-hours and the money invested in this uncalled-for exercise. The investigation by the Public Protector and the briefings of counsel for both the hon the Minister and the Auditor- General have cost the taxpayer millions of rands. This is a clear-cut unnecessary expense which could have been avoided.
While we accept that the hon the Minister did apologise and retract his words, we in the UCDP feel that it would not be unreasonable to call on him to reimburse the costs of the exercise even if it were a fraction thereof. [Applause]
Mrs P DE LILLE: Madam Speaker, section 181(4) of the Constitution provides that no organ of state shall interfere with Chapter 9 institutions, and the Auditor-General is one of these institutions. Mr Maduna has clearly violated this provision and the Public Protector duly found him guilty.
The Public Protector did the correct thing by referring this matter to a parliamentary committee, because Ministers are both individually and collectively accountable and responsible to Parliament for their actions in terms of section 92(2) of the Constitution. Section 92(3) also compels Ministers and Cabinet to act in accordance with the Constitution.
Against this background, and in terms of section 83(b) of the Constitution, which states that the President must uphold, defend and respect the Constitution, it is incumbent upon the President to discipline Mr Maduna for having violated the Constitution in the most unsophisticated manner. [Interjections.] We therefore call on President Mbeki to discipline Mr Maduna or accept collective responsibility for Mr Maduna’s actions.
To compare Mr Maduna’s case with the De Lille judgment is factually wrong. [Interjections.] There is a clear distinction. A Minister violated the Constitution, I did not. I am proud that I fought for certain rights in the Constitution and that my case did not cost the taxpayer millions of rands. But in the Minister’s case: What a waste of money!
The hon the Minister must acknowledge his mistake and apologise. The hon the Minister must be reprimanded the way two other ANC members of Parliament were reprimanded in this House. This is to prevent the Constitution being further violated.
In conclusion, in the light of what the ANC has done, I am seriously considering naming other spies and seeing what action Madam Speaker will take against me. If it means kicking me out of the House, the hon the Speaker will not get it right. [Applause.]
Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, when the leadership of the ANC went into exile during the 1960s, they became very involved establishing relations with international communities and developing the fourth pillar of the struggle, which was lobbying for sanctions to be imposed against the apartheid regime. In 1960, African leaders met and considered, among other things, the situation of South Africa. They established the Organisation of African Unity in May 1963 and by 1964 they had endorsed sanctions against South Africa.
In 1977, after the student massacres of 1976, the OAU structures, co- operating with oil producing and exporting countries - which included Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, while Iran remained out of the picture and supplied oil to South Africa - and workers from around the world, including those from Trinidad, Tobago, Libya and Britain, as well as Shell workers, exposed and put pressure on South Africa by refusing to handle any cargo whose owners had had interaction with South Africa. In other words sanctions were not only biting the South African economy, but were also hurting those who were busting these sanctions.
Oliver Tambo, the then president of the ANC, received the endorsement from Maritime Unions Against Apartheid to take action on the boycotts and on the enforcement of the oil embargo. The go-slows, boycotts and exposures cost millions of dollars. Kurt Waldheim, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and Salim Achmad Salim, then the President of the General Assembly, supported the anti-apartheid movement.
The South African economy relied heavily on oil. Pretoria had to provide incentives to sanction busters. The Strategic Fuel Fund Association was established in 1964, among other things, to covertly supply services and goods for the regime. By 1975 the SFF was stockpiling crude oil as a main task. By 1981 it was a main buyer of oil for strategic purposes.
This is to illustrate that the issue around the SFF is not an issue that is about Maduna. It is about us focusing on the real problems that are happening in that institution. The strategy around 1977 onwards was synonymous with secrecy. The Central Energy Fund Act of 1977 was followed up by a string of amendments which made it progressively more difficult for the public to know anything about the location, quantity, quality, sales or of who the buyers of this oil were. These Acts remained firmly in place until the UN lifted the oil embargo in 1993. This was only repealed by this Parliament in 1994.
When the Auditor-General then submitted his 1992-93 report on the SFF, he was satisfied that he had done his job. The provisions of the Petroleum Products Act were in place. The Auditor-General could provide a limited report after consulting with the State President, the Minister of Minerals and Energy and the Minister of Finance. So powerful were these provisions that the SFF had not been audited for three years and no one was asking any questions. They were too afraid to ask questions because when Jaap Marais had dared to ask about oil being sold to Zimbabwe, he was charged.
The problem was that time was moving on and South Africa had been involved in a number of scandals: there was the ``sniffer’’ plane scandal and Salam oil fraud. Therefore, one has to put oneself into the mind of Minister Maduna, who walked into the Minerals and Energy portfolio.
The elections of 1994 did not change attitudes and habits. In fact, when the Minister was instructed by the Presidency to investigate the contracts of payments by the SFF to the Egyptians, there was a feeling that Maduna was rousing sleeping dogs. It was not surprising because even as the Minister was digging and finding out about the 6c per barrel which a character called Abdelnour was getting - the Minister cancelled that contract - he could not even take the matter further. Why did he not take the matter further if contractually he was right and if there was nothing wrong with the payments he was getting? Or was it that Minister Maduna was getting too close to the bone for the comfort of some people? [Interjections.]
Mr Maduna then questioned the R170 million which was reflected as a loss. He was informed that it was merely a change in the accounting procedures and that no money had been lost. He became puzzled. Please remember that accounting procedures have never been the SFF’s strong point. In 1979, Fred Soudan, a chancer from America, had actually come to South Africa and hoodwinked the same SFF into giving him US$12,3 million with which to buy a tanker. That tanker was used to steal Shell oil. So, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a Minister who comes into a portfolio which has a reputation of not accounting to anybody, a portfolio which has been historically protected by a barrage of laws. [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: What about Emmanuel Shaw III?
Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, that is precisely why the Public Protector’s report is correct in also pointing out that it was not just the hon Maduna who was the issue here. The Public Protector’s report also refers to the problems in the SFF. Those problems are historical and continuing, and we want to ask the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy to look, firstly, into the accounting procedures of the SFF, communications that are happening within the SFF because, yes, Mr Gibson is right that the problems are continuing in the SFF. The problems are not that the hon Maduna has left that portfolio, but that they are continuing and therefore merit observation and investigation by this Parliament.
I wish to tell Mr Douglas Gibson that we have to go back to a South Africa that was then using oil, amongst other things, to harass her neighbours. He has to remember a situation where Lesotho, which is landlocked, organises an oil packages for itself and South Africa blocks it and takes it. Therefore, there is no way that we can sit here and actually mislead one another that everything was fine; that we do not have to worry about the conditions which are obtaining in the SFF because they are obtaining. I want to submit that if they were not continuing, the strategic reserves would not have been sold without consultation taking place.
I do not know, but when I was listening to members, they were telling us that the ANC has refused to do what they were instructed to do by the Public Protector. I do not understand it to be instructing Parliament to do anything. I understand that report to be quite comprehensive. I do not think that the public of South Africa want to elect people who will come here and be instructed to do things, and not use their brains correctly. [Applause.]
Mnr J P I BLANCHÉ: Mevrou die Speaker, vandag spreek ons nie die volk toe nie. Hierdie verslag handel oor die verteenwoordigers van die volk en spreek hulle vandag aan. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Madam Speaker, today we are not addressing the nation. This report deals with the representatives of the nation and we are dealing with them today.]
When we as members of Parliament enter this Chamber to serve the nation, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. We promise the nation that we will respect the institution of Parliament and those state institutions mentioned in Chapter 9 of the Constitution which must strengthen constitutional democracy. To serve here is an honour bestowed on us by the whole nation, not only by our support base. Our decisions and utterances must at all times reflect the regard we have for that trust which the nation placed in us.
From time to time we as members of Parliament will be required to stand firm even against our own Government and our own Ministers and tell them that they have breached the promise to respect the Constitution and the institutions of Parliament. [Interjections.] It is sad when that happens. The last time it happened it started the downfall of the previous government.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Where were you?
Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Those of us who experienced the debate following the Erasmus Commission’s report … [Interjections.] The Minister should listen! Those of us who experienced the debate following the Erasmus Commission’s report will concede that it brought shame to Parliament …
The MINISTER OF FINANCE: But where were you?
Mr J P I BLANCHÉ … and led to the expulsion of a Minister who lied to Parliament …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon member! On what point are you rising, hon member?
Mr D M GUMEDE: Madam Speaker, is the hon member prepared to take a question, and if so …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you prepared to take a question, hon member?
Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: At the end of my speech. Mr D M GUMEDE: Okay, I will do so.
Mr P J I BLANCHÉ: It also ended the career of Prime Minister Vorster. [Interjections.] We now have a more democratic Constitution to uphold. [Interjections.] The Minister should listen carefully because he has to uphold the Constitution. I sincerely hope that the ANC can live up to what they themselves have referred to as ``the will of the people’’.
The ANC has in the last months been tested on more than one occasion. On 5 December a large section of their supporters refused to vote for them. [Interjections.] The report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the ejection of hon member Feinstein as the Majority Party’s spokesman for Scopa added to the Government letting down the people’s Parliament. [Interjections.]
The ANC helped to establish this democratic Parliament. Let us hope that their members will reject the interference from Government members in their domain - the people’s Parliament. If interference in parliamentary committees is going to continue, then ANC members who have the support of the majority of the nation will have less to say in the affairs of the Government than hon member Cassie Aucamp, and this would be of their own doing. They will have proved that collectively they have less guts than hon member Patricia de Lille who all by herself had to prove to the nation that she would not bow down to dictators. [Interjections.]
The facts of this report clearly show that a Minister has overstepped the mark …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Your speaking time has expired, hon member.
Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: … and has tarnished the image of the Auditor-General’s Office. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired, hon member. [Interjections.] Order! Order! Hon member, your speaking time has expired. You may leave the podium. [Interjections.]
Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Madam Speaker, I have a question to answer … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired, hon member. Will you please leave the podium. [Interjections.]
Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Has that speaker not addressed …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, leave the podium. [Interjections.] Order! On what point are you rising, hon member?
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon member sitting there next to Mr Randall van den Heever, the gentleman with a light- coloured jacket, used a word that I am not prepared to use in this House on television. He swore across the floor, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw and apologise. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, would you like to withdraw anything that you said? I did not hear anything, and I can only depend on you to enlighten the House.
Mr P M MATHEBE: Madam Speaker, I said that he was a new member, so what does he know? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, not having heard the hon member, I am not in a position …
Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, could I address you on this point of order? The hon member is not telling the truth. The hon member used the f-word. He said that that hon member knows, and then he used the f-word. I suggest it is unparliamentary and he should withdraw that. [Interjections.]
Mrs S A SEATON: Madam Speaker, I wish to confirm that the word was used.
Mr P M MATHEBE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, the MF wants to place on record that the economy and the citizens are the true victims of corruption and fraud which is conducted in the private sectors and Government institutions. Corruption in South Africa is an epidemic reality which necessitates the Government to strictly implement available control measures to promote the message that crime does not pay.
The investigation conducted by the Public Protector on the alleged irregularities with regard to the affairs and financial statements of the Strategic Fuel Fund Association, and on the relevant reports of the Auditor- General to Parliament, in essence indicates that in order to combat suspicions and actual occurrence of maladministration, all stakeholders must communicate effectively to sustain transparency at all levels in the institution. Stakeholders include the Minister, directors, board members, auditors and staff at all levels in the institution. Furthermore, stakeholders must exercise their specific skills with diligence and caution, within their prescribed authority, to safeguard a company’s assets.
The MF agrees with the Public Protector’s recommendation that all state institutions should establish a formalised fraud strategy to identify, assess, control, prevent and to respond to detected fraud. International experience and expertise must be used to structure this fraud strategy.
On the issue of the Minister infringing the honour and integrity of the Auditor-General, evidence indicates that he did withdraw his statement and apologise. The Rules and orders of this Assembly do not provide constitutional authority to discipline any member for this particular purpose. The Constitution is the supreme law and not Parliament, and therefore to determine the accountability of the Minister and the implementation of the appropriate sanction, the MF concurs with the committee’s recommendation that these matters be referred to the Rules Committee of the National Assembly to consider amendments to the Rules of the National Assembly and the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, I am still puzzled, trying to find out whether Mr Blanché paid me a compliment or not. As was the case in the ad hoc committee, the AEB wishes to express its dissent with the recommendations of the committee. We are dealing here with a serious contravention of the Constitution by Minister Maduna, as the Public Protector explicitly found. I refer especially to section 41 on corporate governance.
The Minister violated the Constitution by not upholding the principles of this section - at least subsections 41(1)(e),(f),(g) and (h) were grossly violated. Minister Maduna’s statements, made in and out of Parliament, were untrue and unjustified. According to his lawyers, he realised that within days, but only two years and R30 million in taxpayers’ money later, he admitted that he was wrong. As no sanctions are stipulated in the Constitution, the Public Protector recommended that Parliament should consider the necessary sanctions.
As a result, the Nel committee was born. At the very beginning of this committee’s actions, the question was asked whether this committee would have the guts to bite, or whether it would at the end only bark a little bit? In the end, the committee did not even bark at all. It did not even give a small little bark like that of a ``skoothondjie’’ [lap dog].
Na ‘n jaar se gewatertrap, en drie keer se uitstel van die teikendatum, kom die kommissie met ‘n verslag wat in sy geheel net ‘n regverdiging bied vir afdeling 453, wat die Minister vrystel daarvan om enigsins om verskoning hoef te vra.
Eintlik kom die komitee en sê: ``Jammer, Meneer die Openbare Beskermer, jy is by die verkeerde adres. Die Parlement wil so graag, maar hy kan nie. Iewers in die gryse verlede het die Minister tog immers gesê dat hy jammer is en wat hy gesê het, terugtrek. En dit is mos voldoende, nie waar nie. Gaan kyk, dit staan in Hansard.’’ Die uitspraak in die De Lille-saak is as misplaasde analogie betrek, om sodoende by ‘n voorafooreengekome argument uit te kom.
Mnr Andries Nel lyk vir my na so ‘n eerlike man. Hy is boonop ‘n regsgeleerde, en hierdie komitee moes tog in ‘n sekere mate regspraak uitoefen. Ek daag hom uit om in die openbaar te verklaar dat daar in geen stadium in die binnekringe van die ANC aan hom gesê is: ``Nelletjie, jy moet keer vir die Minister se `wickets’.’’
Die uitlatings van die Minister het hierdie land R30 miljoen gekos, en dit is in syferterme meer as die sogenaamde Inligtingskandaal van destyds. Die Ouditeur-generaal van die land is in diskrediet gebring, die Openbare Vervolger vra ons optrede, die AEB vra steeds dat die Minister nou, hier, ná die afhandeling van alles, duidelik sy apologie aanteken en deur die Speaker ernstig vermaan word.
Die agb Minister is ‘n ongeluk wat ‘n plek soek om te gebeur, ‘n volgende een kan tot ‘n reuse-katastrofe lei. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[After a year of treading water, and postponing the deadline three times, the commission produced a report which in its entirety only offers justification for section 453, which exempts the Minister from even rendering an apology.
Actually the committee said: ``Sorry, Mr Public Protector, you are at the wrong address. Parliament so dearly wants to, but it cannot. Somewhere in the remote past the Minister said that he was sorry and retracted what he had said. And that surely should be sufficient, not so? Go and have a look, it is recorded in Hansard’’. The judgment in the De Lille case was implicated as a misplaced analogy in order to arrive at a prenegotiated argument.
Mr Andries Nel looks like an honest man to me. Moreover, he is a lawyer and surely this committee, to a certain extent, should have exercised the administration of justice. I challenge him to declare publicly that at no stage in the inner circles of the ANC he was told: ``Nelletjie, you must defend the Minister’s wickets.’’
The statements of the Minister cost this country R30 million and in numeric terms it is more than the so-called Information scandal of the past. The Auditor-general of this country was brought into disrepute, the Public Prosecutor has requested that we take action, the AEB is still requesting that the Minister should here and now, after everything has been finalised, clearly record his apology and that he should be severely reprimanded by the Speaker.
The hon the Minister is an accident waiting for a place to happen, and another one could lead to a major catastrophe.]
Mr M F CASSIM: Madam Speaker, I think, when my colleague the hon Mzizi spoke about the issue this afternoon, he indicated that we needed a way forward, and that is indeed what we should be looking at. The fact that the Minister transgressed is common cause and going back into that does not really help us to go forward.
So, how do we go forward? I think the Public Protector requested that Parliament should be looking at the whole subject of accountability, and the accountability of Ministers and those who serve in the various organs of state towards one another and towards Chapter 9 institutions. Therefore, the nature of accountability is surely the key question to be discussed today. This report, which is just over 301 pages … [Interjections.]
Mrs S A SEATON: Madam Speaker, I just wish to mention, on a point of order, that this is Mr Farouk Cassim from the IFP, and not Mr Carrim from the ANC! [Laughter.]
Mr M F CASSIM: Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mrs Seaton and say that my allegiance is still very much with the IFP.
This is a 301-page report and room probably exists within the Executive Members’ Ethics Act to set out a detailed procedure in respect of the transgressions that we are talking about today.
This afternoon, when the Public Protector’s words were quoted to the effect that every cent spent by the state in pursuing this matter was well worth it, it was met with loud derision by a section of this House. Was that, I ask members, an appropriate response? Does such a response also breach the bounds of mutuality? If Minister Maduna is bound to uphold the integrity of Chapter 9 institutions, then we are also equally bound.
Today’s debate should have been about accountability. A natural consequence of accountability is sanctions. Once again, we need to explore this area and set out the sanctions clearly in rules pertaining to members and their privileges, but not on an ad hoc basis, because that would violate the central principle of the Constitution to follow natural justice.
The Constitution also lays down the main rules by which we must act if transgressions occur. Each member serving on any organ of state must know what disciplinary measures and processes would follow, and what possible sanctions could be applied. This was a golden opportunity given to us here today to exercise our minds on the road ahead in order that whoever transgresses in respect of Chapter 9 institutions would know clearly what sort of processes would follow, and what kind of sanctions could be applied.
There is no doubt that a lacuna exists here and, to that extent, the Nel report is justified in pointing out that there is such a lacuna. If this lacuna then exists, how is it going to be dealt with and when is it going to be dealt with because, clearly, we cannot have a situation where a lacuna in respect of a most important constitutional injunction exists. We have to rectify this and do so speedily. That is the way to go forward. That is the way to assure all Chapter 9 institutions that this Parliament is committed to the upholding of the Constitution in both the letter and the spirit. Therefore, on behalf of the IFP, we request that this injunction of the Public Protector, which was not adequately dealt with, be given further treatment, in order that the lacuna which exists can be removed.
Mr J P CRONIN: Madam Speaker, what we have here is a very substantial report from the Public Protector. The Public Protector makes 11 substantial recommendations in his report. One aspect of these 11 recommendations is that the Speaker of the National Assembly should take the necessary steps to ensure that matters regarding sections 181 and 41 of the Constitution are raised here in Legislature with the view to any possible sanction of the Minister which the legislature might consider appropriate. There are lots of mights, lots of shoulds. However, if one has tried to follow the debate in the media, one could easily have been forgiven for thinking that the Public Protector’s report number 13 contains one, single imperative thought - Parliament must sanction the Minister. Why is there this tunnel vision? Why is there this obsession and this superficiality? Is it because some in the opposition and some in the media see in this an opportunity to milk the very last drop of advantage out of a mistake which the Minister made and for which he has apologised? I am sure that this kind of opportunism is part of the explanation why we have this obsession. But we need to get behind the obsession because we require a fuller explanation which goes to the heart of a number of differences in this House.
There is a paradigm out there which has a strong currency in certain
quarters of our society, and this paradigm holds that here on this dark
continent of jungle justice - according to the hon Gibson - democracy is a
frail and probably European edifice. One blink of the eye from Douglas
Gibson and we will be transported into Harare and next week we will find
ourselves with Idi Amin. In this paradigm, tyrants are all African. They
never come from anywhere else. [Interjections.] And so, week after week, we
are told by the scribes in the parliamentary gallery that our democratic
institutions are on the edge of an abyss. High noon for Parliament'',
reads one headline.Either the Ad Hoc Committee sanctions the Minister or
we plunge into the abyss’’. Watershed week'', the hon Douglas Gibson told
us.Litmus test’’, Do or die'',Last chance’’, over and over again.
One cannot have a watershed week every week. [Interjections.] When one tries to have a watershed every week, drama turns into melodrama and that is what is happening. The most disgraceful example of this kind of doomsday hyperbole, this kind of soap opera reading of Parliament came from an SATV parliamentary journalist who, previewing the opening of Parliament, obviously had no sense whatsoever of the very substantial state of the nation address that our President was about to make. She chose to tell the nation that it was ``make or break time for Parliament’’, once again; that the entire edifice of parliamentary democracy in South Africa rested on the appointment or otherwise of one white judge’s investigative unit. Judge Heath was the last bastion between parliamentary democracy and a banana republic. Let us get real. Really, let us get real. Here in Parliament we all, however much we like or dislike each other, share the fruits of the outcome of the 1994 democratic breakthrough in our country. We all affirm the new Constitution and we all insist, including the SACP, that we are democratic. But what do we mean by democracy? We mean regular multiparty elections. I think we seem to agree. [Interjections.]
I think we all agree that the rule of law is a core element of democracy, although in the present case the opposition wants the ad hoc committee to be the lawmaker, the judge and the prosecutor all in one. [Interjections.] But I nonetheless think that generally we accept the rule of law. The separation of powers, yes indeed, that is important; the independence of the Chapter 9 institutions. I think we all agree that we need to safeguard their reputation and their good standing.
I am sure we agree that we have to do this. But those who trumpet most loudly about the independence and good standing of these Chapter 9 institutions are the very ones who squealed and vilified when the Human Rights Commission tried to institute an investigation into racism. They cannot have it both ways. [Interjections.]
However, there is at least one very core, critical, democratic value of democracy which, I think, we do not share and that is where we part ways. This is a core value and it is universally valid for all societies. But it is of special significance in Third World countries, developing societies and emerging democracies, emerging as they are, as we are, in the shadow of powerful and typically unelected forces largely based in the North. This core value of democracy is majority rule and what flows from that, the relatively sovereign national capacity to translate electoral mandates into actual political social and economic transformation on the ground. Without this capacity the other democratic values are reduced to a charade.
What values are there in multiparty elections if the real policy choices are taken by the IMF or the Club of Paris, which actually happens in some countries in our region? That is the real threat to parliamentary democracy, not whether Andries Nel sanctions a Minister or not.
For the ANC these core democratic values - majority rule and the capacity to implement that majority mandate - in practice are linked to multiparty elections, the freedom to organise, freedom of speech and separation of powers. These are ways of deepening the connection between an elected Government and the people. The role of Parliament is not to stand in the way or to weaken or oppose Government simply for the sake of opposition.
However, the opposition fears this core aspect of democracy. It fears majority rule. It fears an effective sovereign national Government capable of implementing policies that benefit the majority of South Africans. That is why, true to their prejudices and their supine inclinations, the opposition opposed the Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Bill in 1976. [Interjections.] Of course, they now have to beat a hasty retreat from this revealing blunder. This is the difference between us and them: For us democracy means answerability. [Interjections.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, is the hon member prepared to take a question? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Cronin, are you prepared to take a question?
Mr J P CRONIN: If there is time at the end, I will take it. [Interjections.] The difference between us is that whereas our core understanding of democracy is that it is answerability to the majority, their version of democracy that it is a tool to express fear of majority rule.
This difference goes a long way to explain many things. For instance, a great deal more members of the ANC than those of the opposition are appalled by the abrogation of the rule of law in Zimbabwe. We are deeply worried by the bombing of newspaper offices in Harare and by the intimidation of the trade unionists in that country.
We see in these events grave danger signals in which an elected government is deepening the divide between itself and its own former and still potential mass base; deepening its isolation from the majority aspirations and hopes, and therefore weakening its own sovereign capacity to push ahead with the transformation programme for which it received such a landslide mandate back in 1980. We see in these regrettable developments the logical consequence, to some extent, of the hollowing out of democracy and sovereign national capacity in Zimbabwe that goes back at least to 1990, and the enforced implementation of a structural adjustment programme.
The opposition fears democratic majority rule and the potential that exists when that majority is united. That is why it tries unendingly to pit the former ANC president against the present ANC President. That is why the present ANC President suddenly becomes a hero when they try to pit him against two of his Ministers. They constantly try to sow division between the ANC-led alliance, which is what they are trying now without much success. That is why the opposition continually tries to get the ANC in Parliament to act as if it were a minority in opposition to an ANC Government.
We are not going to play into this paradigm. We are not going to be lured into undermining due process or using an ad hoc committee for purposes for which it was not intended. There is not going to be any showdown between the ANC and the ANC on this issue. We are not going to get into this soap opera of reversion of what we should be doing in Parliament and, as a result of this - and this might offend Douglas Gibson’s sense of ego and melodrama - because we are declining to get into some kind of showdown and high noon, there is not going to be any meltdown of democracy here in South Africa. [Applause.]
On behalf of the ANC, I move the adoption of the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Report 13 of the Public Protector. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the report be adopted.
Mr A C NEL: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the report be adopted subject to the substitution of paragraph 5(4)(d) by the following paragraph:
(d) The Committee recommends that these matters be referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and report and be submitted to the Constitutional Review Committee.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, this is the first that I have heard about the amendment, and it certainly has not been given to me. We are not in a position to consider this properly. Where is it?
Mr J H MOMBERG: Madam Speaker, the amendment to the report was circulated by Parliament to all parties before 11h30 this morning.
Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: The last speaker from the ANC, Mr Cronin, also moved the report and then Mr Nel moved the amendment. Now we have two motions here. Does Mr Cronin now withdraw his moving of the original report without the amendment? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just now, hon members, I would like to focus on the issue of the amendment. I saw an hon member from the Freedom Alliance. Do you want to address me?
Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Madam Speaker, I am not from the ``Freedom Alliance’’, I am a member of the FA. I just want to report that my party has not received anything as alleged by hon member Momberg. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It would seem there is a situation in which other parties might not have received the amendment. Is that the situation with all opposition parties?
Mrs S A SEATON: Madam Speaker, we did receive it, but at 13h35. [Interjections.]
Mr J J DOWRY: Madam Speaker, we have not received that amendment. [Interjections.]
Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon Momberg may have sent the amendment to us. But if he sent it at 11h30, most of us were in committee meetings and we have not received it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I think I owe it to the House, in particular the opposition parties, to listen to them about the issue of whether or not they received the amendment. I think it is only fair that we do so.
Now I would just like to see if hon members from the opposition parties feel that they need a break to consider the amendment, or whether we should proceed … [Interjections.] No, hon members, when I am addressing the House, I would like you to show some respect and listen to me.
Hon Lee, would you please show some respect. I am giving an opportunity to opposition parties to put their case. I will hear them out on the issue of whether or not they received the amendment ahead of time.
It would seem some did, while others did not. In that respect, some feel that they might need to be given an opportunity to consider the amendment. But, at the same time, opposition parties can, right here and now, decide to vote against the amendment … [Interjections] … if they feel that they did not have the opportunity to consider it, and therefore it is not in keeping with what they would like to say. [Interjections.]
Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, first of all, we have not had an opportunity to consider the amendment. So, if it is going to be put, we would want time to consider it. But I would like to raise a second point with you, and that is to ask in what capacity the hon Mr Nel is moving an amendment. Does every member of this House have the right, at this stage in the proceedings, to stand up and move an amendment to the report that has been tabled?
I do not understand under what Rule …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, please do not address me on any other issue but the issue that I am dealing with right now, and that is the issue of the amendment. [Interjections.]
My ruling on the question of the amendment is that we go on to the next Order, and then we come back to the issue of the amendment to the report … [Interjections] … in order to give parties an opportunity to consider the issue of the amendment. That, at this point, is my ruling.
Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, may I just …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, I do not want you to address me on the amendment.
Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, I want to move an amendment myself. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I do not want you to … [Laughter.] Order! [Interjections.] Order! [Interjections.] Hon members, we will now go on to the next Order so that parties can consider what they would like to do on the issue of whether or not to amend the report of the ad hoc committee. That is my ruling.
Mr K M ANDREW: Madam Speaker, so, we can move amendments when we … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We will come back to the issue of the report. [Interjections.]
Decision of Question postponed.
EDUCATION: CAPTURING THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF OUR CHILDREN FOR THE FUTURE
(Subject for Discussion)
Mrs R M SOUTHGATE: Madam Speaker, education can be defined as the impartation or acquisition of knowledge, skill or discipline of character. The function of education is thus to school persons in the ultimate values of a culture. An excellent means to analysing the religion of any culture is to study its concept of education.
The basic question which must be faced in order to give perspective to education, is one of ownership. To whom does the child belong? The family is the basic institution in society and is the trustee and steward of its children, not the owner. The state educators’ presupposition is that the child is the property of the state. In all forms of Marxism, national and international socialism alike, the child is a state resource to be developed and used for the welfare of the state. It was the development of this view of man, child and adult as property of the state, which led to the development of state-controlled education.
There is a view held by existentialists and anarchists that the child is his own lord and owner, and not under the state or parents. This view was popularised in the 1960s by the hippie philosophy. It is influential currently, and it is behind attempts to legislate a child bill of rights.
Facts and learning do not exist in a vacuum. There is always a context, and what that context is will depend on our religious faith and presupposition. No fact exists in and of itself. All facts are totally rational, because it has the mind of God behind it, and their reality is more than physical and natural.
Because education means the training of generations to come in the basic values, goals and standards of the society, control is the central key to power. As a result, whereas education had previously been a Christian concern in the Western World, the rise of humanism in the form of the enlightened education began to attract statist concern. The state has become the ark of salvation and the new church of modern man who has sought to bring education totally under the control of the state. To control the future requires the control of education and the child.
State-run education has been the norm in South Africa for many decades. As Christian parents relinquish their responsibilities to educate their children, the state gleefully accepts that role. Those who educate the children of the future control the voters of the future. Outcomes-based education was designed by William G Spady, a sociologist, who has never taught at school. It is a philosophy of masterly learning and attempts to bring about attitudinal changes. Since outcomes are found in the nationally distributed OBE curricula, the result will be children who all have been trained to think the same way about major social problems. That is in the way in which the OBE proponents want them to think.
Outcomes-based education will strip local school boards and parents of their already significantly eroded authority, and then it will control and transfer this authority directly to the state. The state is encouraged by OBE to pass legislation that, with a few minor exceptions, eliminates all current statutes pertaining to education. The results will be a greater degree of uniformity in attitudes among individuals and a lower level of overall excellence in academics.
Students are treated as guinea pigs in a radical experiment. The OBE system offers no method of accountability to students, parents, teachers or taxpayers. In the elementary grades, OBE does not teach children essential reading, writing and arithmetic skills. All of this particularly lowers test scores and achievement results that yearly embarrass most of South Africa’s public schools.
Teaching children how to count is not nearly as important as teaching children what counts. Right from the start, an educational system is not worth a great deal if it teaches children how to make a living but does not teach them how to live.
Parents today must carefully consider all options before they hand their child over to a school or teacher who believes that a child’s basic reading and writing skills are far less important than whether or not that child accepts radical feminism and homosexuality as valuable lifestyles. Beyond this, parents must decide exactly how important values really are. Who will they allow to capture the hearts and minds of their children for the future? Is it the state or is it the parent?
Children are not taught but are assessed. They will not fail even if they cannot read or calculate properly. The new system is not designed to impart knowledge, rather, its purpose is to replace the moral values that they learn from their parents and give them new permissive and politically correct ones. Educators are determined to mould children socially, emotionally and intellectually by ridding them of the attitudes and values which they bring from home so that they will be receptive to a new socially prescribed way of thinking.
Big business backs the OBE system. They impose their model of reform on schools. According to a youth market survey, the youth is becoming a high focus area for marketers in all important sectors of the market. Children, as children, are significant spenders and consumers. The youth market comprises more than 51% of the population. There has been an excess of 12 million school children in South Africa. It has been confirmed that, in South Africa, the youth spend an amount which is in the region of R4 billion per annum. It has been clearly indicated that children learn to recognise brands at an early age, between three to five years.
One of the objects which was defined in that market research is that marketers explore the school system on how they can influence a specific target group in relation to certain brands that they want to market. The methodology of the research shows that children are extremely sincere and have no problem in showing their feelings and beliefs. Humans are seen as merely machines who have no intrinsic value. Their only worth is what they can produce. Dr Chrissie Steyn of Unisa’s Department of Religious Studies stated that our children must live in the future and that the education of their parents is not good enough for them. I ask the question: Whose children are they? Do they belong to the state or to the parent? God gives parents primary responsibility and authority for the education of the child.
Today, people want women’s rights, children’s rights, animal rights, gay rights, abortion rights and so forth. If South Africa continues in the way in which it is going, it will soon be given the last rites.
Martin Luther said, and I quote:
I am much afraid that the schools will prove to be the wide gates to hell unless they diligently labour in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of the youth. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not constantly occupied with the word of God must become corrupt.
[Applause.] Prof S M MAYATULA: Madam Speaker, this motion by the ACDP could not have come at a better time - the Department of Education hosted a conference on Values, Education and Democracy in the 21st Century only last month.
For this debate, I will confine myself to tolerance of different views and perspectives to life as a value to be embraced by all South Africans, especially the youth. I am not sure whether I have the same understanding of the outcomes-based education as the hon Southgate, because, for the first time, our children are allowed to be individuals, coming from different societies, coming from different churches, and coming with different values which need to be developed, instead of being the tabula rasa, where the teacher must write his own views - on these blank slates.
Njengekholwa, Somlomo, ndivumele ndikhe ndenze imizekelwana ebonisa ukuba thina singamaKrestu, kumaxesha ngamaxesha, siyalibala ukuhambisana nabanye abantu. Endaweni yoko into esiyenzayo kukungabahloneli, sicinge ukuba zonke izinto abazenzayo zizinto ezingento esimele ukuzibeka ecaleni.
Ndivumele ndenze umzekelo omnye. Ndithe ndisenkonzweni leza kum elinye ilungu libindekile. Libuze ngale nto imbi kangaka siyenzayo kule Palamente yokuba siyeke amaKomanisi asiqweqwedise kangangokuba siyeke nokuthandaza phambi kokuba sivule kuba, ngokwalo mzalwana, ubuKrestu bubalulekile. Wonke umntu ongenguye umKrestu makabekelwe ecaleni.
Ndiye ndimkhumbuze ke umzalwana lo ukuba kobu buRhulumente sikubo sifikelele kwixesha lokuba uMgaqo-siseko wethu uzivumele iinkolo ngeenkolo ukuba zingacinezelwa. Yiyo loo nto athi uSomlomo, xa siyivula le Palamente imihla ngemihla, aqale asinike umzuzwana ukuze ngabanye ngabanye sithandaze oothixo esicinga ukubathandaza. Ukuba asifuni kuthandaza singathandazi. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[As a Christian, Madam Speaker, please allow me to cite a few examples to show how we Christians, on numerous occasions, forget to co-operate with other people. Instead, we disrespect them and we think that whatever they do should be ignored as not worthy of our attention.
Please allow me to give just one example. I was at church one day and one member of the congregation who looked very aggrieved came up to me. He wanted to know why we allowed the Communists in this Parliament to mislead us so much that we do not even pray before the start of our debates. According to this man Christianity is important. All those who do not follow the Christian faith should be left out.
I often remind him that our Government’s Constitution allows for freedom of religion. That is why Madam Speaker gives us a moment of silence every day when opening Parliament, so that we can each direct our prayers to the gods we wish to pray to. If we do not want to pray, we do not do so.]
Last week I attended a funeral where the priest went out of his way to ridicule the way the alliance people and comrades greet each other - this way of three steps - and said this is actually done by the boys, amakwenkwe, and that he does not allow this in his church. I started wondering whether he has taken into consideration that there are a number of dignified people out there who are not amakwenkwe, or boys, and who, through their own choice, have decided to accept this way of greeting? Does this affect Christians in any way? Is it not good for us as Christians to allow other people to do their own thing, and invite them to do what we do through example and by talking to them?
One might ask, what are the values that we should inculcate into the minds of our youth? In its definition of values, the Working Group on Values, Education and Democracy has this to say:
By values we mean desirable qualities of character such as honesty, integrity, tolerance, diligence, responsibility, compassion, altruism, justice and respect.
If all our children could be taught these values, I am sure South Africa would be a different place.
In his remarks to the working group’s report, the Minister of Education, Prof Kader Asmal, had this to say:
The moral fibre and value system of our people are constituted and reconstituted in our schools, in our places of worship, on sports fields and at the workplace. But the most important part of all these, where our kids spend most of their time, are our schools, and they must grasp this.
This report goes on to say, and I quote:
We have to collectively develop and sustain values in our schools that are conducive to democracy, nation-building, antiracism and antisexism.
The working group came up with an all-embracing vow of allegiance which sums up what is expected of us all as South Africans, in particular our youth. It reads and I quote:
I promise to be loyal to my country, South Africa, and to do my best to promote its welfare and the wellbeing of all of its citizens. I promise to show self-respect in all that I do and to respect all my fellow citizens and all of our various traditions. Let us work for peace, friendship and reconciliation and heal the scars left by past conflict, and let us build a common destiny together.
Let us not undermine other religions. Let us not do what is happening in Afghanistan now, where all the ancient Buddhist monuments are being destroyed. Why? Because the ruling party happens not to like what they are doing. Let us as Christians not allow our people to do what was done to us, which was the persecution of Christians. Let us embrace everybody and work together. We should instil the kind of attitude in our children that we, all of us, are part of the human race, and that as a part of the human race, our Constitution gives us the right to dignity, which we should extend to everybody.
Unfortunately, sometimes we as Christians do not go as far as that. We look
at our people differently, and we say things such as, I would love to
love you, but unfortunately, you are not white enough'', orI would love
to love you, but it seems your culture and traditions do not make you a
human being’’. Why do we not, as Christians, see Christ in whoever we see,
and allow them to do their own thing? If we do that, we are going to
develop a better country and future, and our children are going to respect
us for that. [Applause.]
Mr R S NTULI: Madam Speaker, hon members, throughout history education has tended to serve the interests and objectives of political, cultural and economic systems. In South Africa, education was once an instrument to divide people racially and ethnically. Consistent with this ideology, black institutions, schools and universities alike - black ones, I mean - were to function more as detention centres for black intellectuals than centres that would nourish intellectual thought. It was this ideological trust and its attendant conditions that formed the basis for resistance. Black institutions, indeed, served as incubators for the struggle against apartheid.
In 1994 South Africa, contrary to the prophets of doom, succeeded in achieving a peaceful transition to democracy, although the possibility of a protracted conflict and violence was extremely high. But thanks to God Almighty it did not happen. Our new democratic and liberal Constitution ushered in a new set of values that made a fundamental break with the past. These values, with proper nourishing and advocacy, can assist in capturing the hearts and minds of our children for a better future. This new set of values is underpinned by the Preamble of the Constitution, which boldly states, and I quote: Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;
Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by the law;
Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and
Build a united and democratic South Africa …
We must accept that tremendous and conscious effort and purposeful action will be necessary from all of us to realise the intent and the spirit of the Constitution. It would be naïve to expect that the severe erosion and denial of human dignity to a big section would heal quickly, and that without purposeful effort active reconciliation would easily be ushered in.
While a holistic approach is necessary to constitute and nurture the moral fibre and value systems of our people, the home as a functional unit of society, the workplace and, in particular, schools and other learning centres, will remain the major propelling agents and custodians of our value systems. Schools are the social institutions through which the value systems of nations are conveyed from generation to generation. Commendable work has been done in this regard by the Department of Education to show us the path which we should follow. The DP wishes to congratulate the hon the Minister on his vision and dynamic leadership in this matter.
The working group as alluded to by the previous speaker presented a formal report of its findings regarding the protection and promotion of values in education. This invaluable report is indeed a suitable starting point in what ought to become a national debate on the appropriate values for South Africa to nurture and advocate in our educational institutions. These values naturally derive from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as the consideration of educational philosophy. The values that were noted were equity, tolerance, multilingualism, openness, accountability and social honour. The report highlights three elements to an educational philosophy.
The first is to develop intellectual ability and cultural faculties among our children and young adults in our schools. A democratic society can only function best when its citizens have a clear understanding of the history and current affairs, and where nothing is beyond question.
Secondly, the educational philosophy of our democracy should emphasise inclusiveness which will develop a culture and ethos in our schools which actively include all learners irrespective of their background in the formal and informal aspects of school life. This requires an appreciation and acceptance of cultural diversity, actively encourage multilingualism and religious tolerance.
Thirdly, our educational philosophy should provide learners with tools to solve many problems that come with being human throughout one’s life span. We need to teach our children to treat problems as challenges to be solved through knowledge and understanding rather than as unbearable burdens to be endured without solutions. The will and courage to approach life in this manner does not simply reside in science, but in the spirituality of humanity that defines our attitude in life. This suggests a need to have a religious attitude to life. Finally, as custodians of these value systems, especially our teaching corps, we must not only accept and cherish these value systems, but we must also practice these value systems so that we should be able to create a happy and dynamic educational atmosphere which will reflect the values and goals of our community and to provide a balanced education encompassing the academic, cultural, social and spiritual development of our children so that each of of them can reach their potential and be the best they can be.
We wish to appeal to teachers to be loyal to their duties and their obligations as registered members of the South African Council of Educators to do all that is possible and desirable to enhance the status of the teaching profession, to continually engage in professional self-development and to regulate their professional conduct especially when dealing with learners. They should do this in a manner where individually and collectively they can be proud to say that indeed their profession is the mother of all professions. Only then will we be on our way to capture the hearts and minds of our children for the future. [Applause.]
Mr B M DOUGLAS: Chairperson, I did not mean malice when I thought that capturing the hearts and minds of our children might have been understood to mean liberating the hearts and minds of our children for the future. Our children are already captive. They are in bondage, chained, enslaved. They are handcuffed by social pressures, such as material things, illiteracy, unemployment, Aids and crime. So we should unshackle them, free them and deliver them. Maybe we could change that a little bit. That is what will be the angle of my presentation.
Our youth are becoming victims of all that is base and profane, where pornography, degeneracy and promiscuity are being promoted in books, magazines and motion pictures, where mawkish, pathetic shows are passed off as entertainment on television and the big screens. It is still more sickening to see pill-popping, beer-guzzling, cigarette-sucking, cocaine- snorting and freakish kwaito Yizo Yizo youths being held up as examples or role models of the modern South African youth. I wonder what education is going to do about that or how it is going to assist with that.
Even more sickening was a march, a week ago, in which children, instead of concentrating on their classical and didactical situation or their cognitive development in the classroom, rather went and were enmeshed by and immersed in an orgy of destruction in the streets of Johannesburg. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. What has happened to our education seems to be what Shakespeare said in Hamlet, I think.
Our children need to be rescued from this polyglot of evil, this plethora of veritable rivers of misguided freedom, pleasures and amusement. I was not amused last night when everybody spoke about reconciliation. I did not see any reconciliation between the ``pampoen boere’s children’’ [pumpkin farmers’ children] and the black children when Mr Terre’Blanche arrived to serve his prison sentence. I do not know what to say about racial harmony and tolerance levels. I so hate polarisation and racism. I do not know where the rainbow youth are and what education is going to do about this.
Some fingers, as the hon Southgate said, are also being pointed at the effect that secular, dialectical humanism and situational ethics might have on the classical situation where some teachers are being accused of being conveyors and purveyors of diabolical edicts in the classroom and outside.
There are so many things with regard to education, but the worst dilemma facing our youth today is that we are sitting here with 72% of young people who will account for all new HIV/Aids infections by the year 2005. I cannot say more. Within a decade, about 40% of South Africans will be between the ages of 15 and 24, and I do not know how well it bodes for the success of education.
I think that we need to go back to the drawing board and develop new
programmes or adjust programmes which are already in place. I know that the
Department of Education has made great strides in this sphere. As the
prophet Isiah said, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as
white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool''. He
said:Come now, let us reason together’’.
So, this chemistry of reasoning together between core Government departments is a prognosis for victory, with a little help here and there. So, all is not doom and gloom. But where something is rotten in the state of Denmark, it has to stop. [Applause.]
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Madam Speaker, the previous speaker made a telling point when he said that the last thing that we needed in South Africa was a repetition of what happened yesterday outside the courtroom in Potchefstroom, and I agree with him.
This is my maiden speech on education and, hopefully, I will be protected against interjections from the floor. [Laughter.] The subject for discussion is Education: Capturing the hearts and minds of our children for the future.
Mao Tse-tung - the Minister of Education would probably refer to him as ``Comrade Mao’’ - once said that if one wants to build a new society, one must first get rid of the enemies in the hearts and minds of the people. Now, unlike Mao, I do not believe that destruction necessarily precedes construction, and I would therefore like to take a much more positive line.
If we want to build a new nation we will have to impress specific values conducive to nation-building on the hearts and minds of our children while they are still at school. In order to achieve this objective, schools should play a much bigger and a much more important role than merely being assembling lines for the labour market.
Filosowe wat konsentreer op die toekoms, soos Marcuse en Van Peursen, voorsien ‘n toekomstige samelewingsmodel waar werksgeleenthede, as gevolg van fenomenale tegnologiese vooruitgang, die uitsondering gaan wees en nié die reël nie. Skole moet kinders ook op só ‘n moontlikheid en situasie kan voorberei.
Weens die beperkte tyd tot my beskikking kan ek nie uitbrei op waardes wat bevordelik is vir nasiebou en reeds op skoolvlak by ons kinders ingeskerp moet word nie. Ek kan net in die verbygaan daarna verwys. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Philosophers who concentrate on the future, like Marcuse and Van Peursen, anticipate a future societal model where job opportunities will be the exception and not the rule as a result of phenomenal technological advances. Schools should also be able to prepare children for such a possibility and situation.
Because of the limited time at my disposal I cannot elaborate on values which are conducive to nation-building and which should already be impressed on our children at school level. I can only refer to that in passing.]
An important value conducive to nation-building which we must impress on the hearts and minds of our children is that rights imply duties. One does not simply have a right, one also has a duty, a responsibility. And I think in this regard we can take a leaf out of The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. This document, the only one of its kind to do so, equates rights with duties in the preamble. Let me quote from this document:
… considering that the enjoyment of rights and freedoms also implies the performance of duties on the part of everyone.
I fully endorse that.
South Africa is a violent society. We must impress the need to solve conflict in a non-violent manner on the hearts and minds of our children, and at the same time teach them the skills to do so. Conflict resolution should become a compulsory subject at school level.
Aids poses the single biggest threat to nation-building. There may be many reasons for the disease spreading so fast. Immorality is undoubtedly one of them, and we must impress on the hearts and minds of our children moral values emanating from a religious way of life. Simply addressing the symptoms of Aids is not the final answer.
Finally, we should impress on the hearts and minds of our children the need for mutual respect and understanding, which is imperative for nation- building. [Applause.]
Mr C T FROLICK: Madam Speaker, hon members, the subject under discussion captures the challenge facing all South Africans as our society is continuously being transformed from one that was based on an evil and cruel ideology into a caring society, which must have the wellbeing of all its citizens at heart.
Whatever value system prevails, our children must realise that the glaring inequalities as a result of previous policies are still evident in all walks of society, especially in education. It requires deliberate intervention by the Government, civil society and all other stakeholders, to address these imbalances. These disparities are firmly entrenched between the rich and the poor, urban and rural communities and the haves and the have-nots. We need to ask ourselves not only what is the value system that should prevail, but also how we can lead our children and what we can do for them to believe that they have a meaningful contribution to make in our country.
In addressing these questions, our vision should be inspired and driven by a value system with a deep commitment to change the painful living conditions affecting so many South Africans today. The majority of our people are still victims of the devastating effects of poverty, and this deprives them of hope and relegates them to a state of despair. It destroys their capacity to achieve.
Deliberate intervention must be undertaken to conscientise our children about the challenges facing our nation and the contribution they can make in arriving at lasting solutions. The creative power in our diversity must be set free, so as to allow each child to fulfil his or her own potential within an accepted value system. The actions must be guided by values such as respect for life, dignity and human worth of every individual.
Tolerance and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and national self-discipline should be based on an acceptance that each right and freedom carries with it a corresponding and equal obligation and responsibility. Ultimately, all of us should strive towards guiding our country’s children to become patriotic, caring citizens with an unbridled passion to put the interests of the country first, as we strive to do what is best for South Africa.
Genl C L VILJOEN: Mevrou die Speaker, om die jeug se toewyding en energie te fokus op die toekoms moet ons in die eerste plek ophou om hulle denke te besoedel met die slegte uit die verlede. As ons altyd net terugkyk op die slegte en die slegte opdien, dan verloor ons die toekoms. Bewaar ons jeug daarvan. Laat ons tog weer ag slaan op die woorde van ‘n wyse Paul Kruger. Hy was sterwend as ‘n balling, sy volk verslaan, 26 000 vroue en kinders het in die konsentrasiekampe omgekom, maar steeds leef hy sy Bybelse riglyne uit in sy laaste boodskap. Hy haat nie en hy neem uit die verlede dit wat mooi en edel is en bou daarop die toekoms.
Dit is ‘n mooi boodskap vir die jeug. Moenie ons jongmense se gees besoedel met die negatiwiteit van die verlede nie. Hulle hart en gees kan ten beste vasgevang word vir die toekoms deur middel van positiwiteit.
Ek wil slegs drie punte noem in die tyd tot my beskikking. Eerstens is daar die positiewe aspek van moedertaalonderwys vir leerlinge en onderwysers. ‘n Vreemde opvoedingstaal skep spanning en onsekerheid by die jeug en dit vervreem die geleerdes van die res, aldus adjunk-minister Mangena. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Gen C L VILJOEN: Madam Speaker, to focus the commitment and energy of the youth on the future we must, in the first place, stop polluting their thoughts with the bad aspects of the past. If we always simply look back at the bad and serve it up, we lose the future. Protect our youth from that. Let us once again heed the words of a wise Paul Kruger. He was dying in exile, his people had been defeated, 26 000 women and children had died in the concentration camps, but he still lived out his Biblical guidelines in his final message. He did not hate and he took from the past what was good and noble and built the future on that.
This is a good message for the youth. Do not pollute the spirit of our young people with the negativity of the past. Their hearts and spirits can best be captured for the future by way of positivity.
I want to mention only three points in the time at my disposal. Firstly, there is the positive aspect of mother-tongue education for pupils and teachers. A foreign language of instruction creates tension and uncertainty among the youth and this alienates the educated from the rest, according to Deputy Minister Mangena.]
The FF also agrees with the Deputy Minister when he gives us another direction as to how to capture the hearts and minds of our youth for the future. He said:
Without culture we are reduced to ordinary animals. Our norms, values and customs are intricately intertwined with our culture.
We agree with this. We should therefore allow for an own identity, whilst having respect for others. Do not force the youth into assimilating into a strange, new, undefined common culture which we all do not know.
Thirdly, hearts and minds of the future are coupled to hurts from a divided past. Allow all the youth equal opportunities. Do not push affirmative action down the throat of our young generations. Allow them the dignity to stand on an equal footing.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker, hon members, children are the wealth of the nation. We have to take extreme care in educating them, lest they be fed the wrong stuff. Who educates them and what they are being taught and where and how they are being taught, are matters that have to be heeded.
For education to succeed, educators and parents have to accept that learners are their business. Educators have to do their utmost because once they fail in delivery, it may not be possible to recall all learners who went through their school to overhaul them, as one would do with motor vehicles which show a common defect.
Teachers must do all they can at first attempt, because the failure of a teacher in making a man or a woman of substance out of the pupils he has taught, is something that will haunt him or her for as long as he or she lives. He or she will continue to see the failure in life, unlike a doctor whose failures are buried and are forgotten in time. Our educators and learners should be imbued with the reality that education is not switched on and off at the ringing of the school bell. Learners must be prepared to assimilate as much as they can and teachers must be prepared to impart as much as they can.
After all, a teacher is unlike a candle, whose light burns out the longer it burns. With the teacher, the more he imparts light, the more he becomes enriched himself. We should strive for a situation in which we see children in pursuit of knowledge, and not knowledge in pursuit of children, as is the case these days.
John F Kennedy once said: A child miseducated is a child lost.'' We
cannot afford to let our children go astray. After all, the great end of
education is to discipline the mind rather than to furnish the mind.
Education has to train the mind to use its own powers rather than fill it
with the accumulation of others. Parents and teachers must be models
according to which children can hope to live. The answer to all our
national problems, and those of the world, is embodied in a single word.
That word iseducation’’.
Mrs J CHALMERS: Madam Speaker, hon Ministers, members of the House, there is no doubt that children are the most valuable asset in any society for, as has often been stated, they are the future.
Certainly, the old nationalist government recognised this fact, which is why they gave so much attention to ensuring that the majority of children in this country had a limited future. They made sure that our children were ill-educated and did not grow up in a secure family environment. They spent long years mapping out a landless future for our children and devising, with truly evil intent, shackles and chains that attempted to bind them forever in psychological dependency.
On 1 June 1956, Mr H S Erasmus, NP member for Odendaalsrus, said in the House of Assembly:
… I feel that it is most desirable for all young Natives, say between 15 and 16 years of age, to be placed in youth camps so that they can do land service, and do it gratis … They must be taught to work with a pick and shovel, because they will need that knowledge in their lives.
The Machiavellian schemes of the NP were more than 50 years in the hatching and implementation, and their effects are still painfully evident in this country. The challenges are huge. There is land to be redistributed through due process so that our children can benefit from what is rightfully theirs. There are languages to be learned so that our children can communicate with one another. There are games to be played so that our children can form teams with common goals so that they can learn to know and love one another. There are also values to be ensured so that our children, rather than having their hearts and minds captured, will have them freed to enable them to look and learn from good examples in such a way that they, in turn, will be an example for the next generation.
The education of our children begins at birth, as they begin to assimilate and learn about their surroundings and absorb the values and cultures into which they have been born. The family, whether it be nuclear or extended, is the growth medium of a child, and like any growth medium, if it is lacking in nutrients, it risks producing a stunted product. This is a risk which our Government is fully aware of. Indeed, fundamental changes are beginning to happen in the now Department of Social Development to make that growth medium a secure and developmental one and not merely one of survival.
Modern society puts our children at so much risk. There are obvious dangers and here our Government is taking multiple steps to reduce these risks. I think here of the devastation on our roads and what the state is doing to try and limit that carnage. But civil society must take more responsibility for what is happening, giving clear direction to our children of the need to protect themselves from the effects of that carnage. It is truly distressing to see, despite legislation and the technology to address the problem, the numbers of children not made secure in cars. I would plead for much stronger actions against seatbelt offenders.
I think of children and guns, and the tragedies that occur through parental negligence, and here the Firearms Control Act may go quite a long way to preventing future tragedies of this sort. Once again, management of the firearm scenario requires committed co-operation from civil society, and consideration could be given to creating an opportunity for children to become part of the debate on how to manage the threat guns present to society. I remember an occasion where a group of children organised themselves to lobby against the sale of toy guns. They really caught the attention of the public.
I think of the horror of child abuse. In a supplementary of last week’s Sunday Times 62% of young people interviewed stated that child abuse is one of the greatest concerns for them today, with many reports from teenagers of having had personal experiences within their homes and schools. This abuse does not remain with those children for it is a proven fact that abused children frequently become abusing parents and the cycle is perpetuated. I hope and trust that the rationalisation of the child protection unit will mean more, and not less, protection for our children.
I would like to say something here about HIV/Aids, for in South Africa it is a children’s issue. Apart from those infected, it is estimated that within the next five years, 1 million children under the age of 15 years are expected to lose one or both parents to Aids. Throughout the country many vulnerable communities, households and families are developing strategies enabling them to address and cope with the impact of HIV/Aids on household security. I would make a plea for us to undertake more research into these community-initiated strategies and for action to underpin these initiatives with as much support as possible.
Lastly, it is true to say that our children are growing up in a world full of danger and risk. But we should also recognise that we have a responsibility to open their eyes to the wonders of this world and to open their ears so that they can tune into the sounds of the world around them. We have a responsibility, too, to engender in them an understanding that the resources of our earth, whether they be trees, water or the very soil itself, are valuable and not to be used to destroy it lightly, that the stories they hear at their grandmother’s knee are a precious part of their heritage and that the cultural skills of the past have a value in the future because, and I repeat, these are our children and they are the future. [Applause.]
Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, our children are our greatest asset and our nation’s most valued resource. We owe it to our children to provide facilities and an environment which will give them a good life.
Education, and specifically early childhood education, is the bridge that crosses to a full life. Jesus said:
I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
They should have it to the brim; in fact, bubbling over.
It is now universally accepted that the first five years of life are the most crucial years, because 90% of the growth of the human brain takes place during this time. In the same period, 50% of the growth of the body is completed. This means that during the first five years children need 90% of our time, 90% of our life, love and 90% of our money; that is, our Budget.
In a country with a history of deep racial attitudes and prejudices, we need to admit that some older people will never change their fixations and indoctrinations. Some will go to their graves with their attitudes and superstitions. Children are our best hope and our best building blocks for the future. Jean Jacques Rousseau said:
Everything is good as it come from the hands of the maker, but degenerates in the hands of man.
Children should be made to appreciate the richness and beauty of our plural society with its wide variety of cultures and gifts, and that our differences are a blessing from God. We should cultivate in the minds of our children a strong sense of belonging to this land which God has given us. They should know that they are Africans and should be proud of it. We should teach our children at least three of the eleven official languages.
Ignorance of languages used daily by many people makes one feel like a foreigner in one’s country. All schools should have equal facilities and no child should learn in a school which is dilapidated and dirty. A full- rounded education curriculum should be provided so that we do not produce lethal automatons, machines and robots. Religious education and religious values should be given. ``The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and, again, one shall know the truth and the truth shall make one free’’.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, the MF advocates that education and the livelihood of our children are everyone’s responsibility. We do have weaknesses and strength in the education system. However, our collective responsibility is to meet these challenges with a critical attitude to improve the quality of life of our children.
The MF recognises that the restructuring of the primary, secondary and higher education system is aimed at addressing crises and dealing with the transformation. Therefore, efforts are made to formalise the output and productivity of the education system, so that it can complement the family dynamics, prepare the youth academically and provide a vision of a new social order in South Africa.
Parents, educators, learners, society and the Government must work in partnership to cultivate a habit of learning and commitment, irrespective of obstacles we are facing. Uncompromising responsibility must be the yardstick to guide the hearts and intellects of our children to accept the diverse purpose in life, which ultimately decides the destiny of South Africa.
Special efforts must be made by the Education department to promote the understanding of the South African Schools Act of 1996, in particular the issue of school fees, which is highly misunderstood. The inability of poor parents to pay school fees has embarrassed learners and it has resulted in many school dropouts. Other serious issues that are hurting our children’s enthusiasm to meet the challenges in life are crime, drug addiction, alcoholism and HIV/Aids. The MF is appealing to all role-players in society to spearhead available action plans to address these problems in their communities.
The question of children with disabilities in mainstream education is still an issue to be grappled with. After all, we know that the opportunity to contribute to the development of the country should not discriminate against disabled children.
The power of our children’s hearts and intellect will determine their preparedness to invest their creative energies in South Africa. [Applause.]
Mrs M S MAINE: Madam Speaker and members of the NA, on 27 May 1992 to 1 June 1992, 17 regions assembled in Somerset West to discuss and draft the Children’s Charter of South Africa. It was realised that children in South Africa have not been treated with respect and dignity, which was the result of the apartheid era that has caused discrimination, violence, racism and the destruction of families and communities. It disrupted education, social relationships and separated many children from their parents and communities.
In 1994, at the Orlando Stadium, the Government ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 1996 the National Plan of Action was officially launched, and later provincial programmes of action were launched. Local programmes of action were developed in some municipalities.
Due to the fact that the process came from the Mass Democratic Movement and because South African children, especially African, seized space and demanded to the heard during the liberation struggle, the national plan of action strongly encouraged the participation of children. Their voices are always listened to, as far as the ANC is concerned. The children continued to play an important role throughout South African society and in the NPA.
This is proved by the statement the President made at the Commonwealth summit, when he said, and I quote:
If we want to say that life is changing for the better, that there is any improvement, and that we are better off today than we were yesterday, that must show in the children.
If this does not prove that we in the ANC are the champions in capturing the hearts and minds of our children for the future, then the hon member’s name is North and not South.
Mo nakong e e fetileng, ngwana yo o bonwetseng mo legaeng la Bokeresete, jaaka ke utlwile le moruti a ne a umaka ka tsa Bokeresete, o ne a rutiwa gore ga a na tshwanelo ya go ganetsana le mogolo ope, e ka nna ka fa le lapeng kgotsa kwa motseng. Se, se ne sa dira gore bana ba le bantsi ba bogodisiwe ke bagolo. Bana ba, ba ne ba sena kwa ba ka tlhagisetsang dingongorego tsa bona teng.
Seo se fetotswe ke Molaotheo wa rona o moswa ka ntlha ya mabaka a ke a umakileng. Ona o tlhokomela gore bana ga ba tshwanelwa ke pogiso le kgatelelo. Se sengwe se ke se eletsang ke gore leloko le le tlotlegang le tshwanetse go se itse ka ANC ke gore, NPA ya Aforika Borwa ke e e gaisang mo lefatsheng lotlhe. E tlhokometse gore lefapha lengwe le lengwe, le nne le seabe mo tlhokomelong ya dipelo, maikutlo tota le botshelo jo bo botoka jwa bana ba rona
Se ke se kopang ke gore, maloko a ACDP a tshwanetse go gakologelwa gore a dirile maikano mo Ntlong e gore, a tla obamela Molaotheo. Ka jalo, a tshwanetse go tlhokomela gore, ga a dire sepe se se tla re belaetsang gore, a rata go busetsa bana ba rona kwa molaotheong wa maloba.
Tumelo ya Bokeresete ga e na molato, fela e nna setshosa fa Bakeresete ba e dirisa go gatelela bana ka yona. ANC e tlhotlheletsa bana ka dinako tsotlhe go tlotla bagolo le bana ba bangwe, gammogo le ditumelo tsa bona, le gore seo, e nne botho jo ba ipelang ka jona. Fela, e se nne bo, ``A o jele? Ee. Ga o a ja. Ee’’, tota le fa a tshwerwe ke tlala.
Jaaka bagolo le maloko a kokoano Boset[s]haba e, re tshwanetse go rotloetsa bana ba rona go ema mmogo, ka maikaelelo a le mangwe e leng, go direla naga ya bona Aforika Borwa, gore Aforika e nne e e gaisang mo lefatsheng lotlhe.
Re dumela fa re tsamaya sentle. Jaaka ANC, re okeditse madi a a thusang bana gore kwa bofelong ditlhaloganyo, dipelo le maikutlo a bona, di baakanyeditswe isago e e siameng. Se, se tla tlhotlheletsa gore maokelo, dikliliniki le dikolo di tle di agiwe mo nakong e e tlang.
Mowa o tlhoka dijo tsa tumelo, pelo e tlhoka boitumelo, mme botshelo bo tlhoka kgololosego. Tlhaloganyo yona, e tlhoka go dira e sa gatelelwe. Se, se raya gore mowa ke ona o tlhometseng monagano, maikutlo le botshelo jo bo botoka mo isagong ya bana.
Jaaka ANC, re diragatsa keletso le maikano a a builweng ke Mopresidente Mbeki fa a ne a bula Palamente, mme ke a mo nopola: … go se nne le ngwana ope wa Moaforika yo o tlhabiwang ke ditlhong tsa go bidiwa Moaforika.
Tse jaaka ANC, re di supa mo leanong la rona la namola leuba, le le abetsweng R1,5 bilijone. Se, ke monagano le maikutlo a isago ya bana ka gore fa tlala e fokotsega, bana ba nna le boitekanelo le boitumelo. (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[In the past, a child who was born in a Christian home - I heard the priest mentioning Christianity - was taught that he did not have the right to argue with any adult, be it in his home or in the community. This led to many children being made to suffer by adults. These children had nowhere to make their complaints.
That was changed by our new Constitution for the reasons I have already mentioned. It ensures that the children should not suffer and be oppressed. I also want to appeal to the hon member that what he should know about the ANC is that South Africa’s National Plan of Action is the best in the whole world. It ensures that every department should make a contribution in looking after the hearts, the feelings and indeed even a better life for our children. What I am asking is that members of the ACDP should remember that they have taken an oath in this House that they will abide by the Constitution. As such, they should ensure that they do not do anything that will make us suspect that they want to take our children back to the old constitution.
There is nothing wrong with the Christian faith, but it becomes a joke when Christians use it to oppress our children. The ANC encourages children at all times to respect the elderly and other children, as well as their religions, and that they should take pride in that. But they must not be silly and agree to everything.
As the adults of the National Assembly, we should encourage our children to stand together with the sole intention of working for their country, South Africa, so that Africa should be the best in the whole world.
We believe that we are on the right track. As the ANC, we have increased the child care grant so that in the end their minds, hearts and feelings are ready for a better future. This will encourage the building of hospitals, clinics and schools in future. A soul needs belief, a heart needs happiness, but life needs freedom. On the other hand, a mind needs to work without being oppressed. This implies that the soul looks after the mind, the feelings and a better life for the future of our children.
As the ANC, we apply the wishes and aspirations of President Mbeki when he said during the opening of Parliament and I quote:
… no African child should ever again feel ashamed to be an African.
As the ANC, we show this in our plan on drought relief, which has been allocated R1,5 billion. This amounts to having our children’s interests and future in mind, because when hunger is reduced, the children become healthy and happy.]
The ANC, in capturing the hearts and minds of our children for the future, are the champions.
Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, may I start by congratulating Mrs Southgate on an excellent speech. I intend to publish it in our newspaper. I see the Minister is smiling. I would like to tell him that she could just as well have studied at Potchefstroom University.
By the way, a comment was made about Potchefstroom. I would just like to tell the Minister that that had nothing to do with the university. It was the agricultural college which they mentioned.
Sy het die kritieke vraag gevra: Aan wie behoort ons kinders? Behoort hulle aan die staat of aan die ouer? Ek wil graag verder hierop uitbrei. Die ouer is primêr verantwoordelik. Ek het met die doop van elkeen van my vyf kinders, wat nou al uit die huis uit is, ‘n belofte voor God afgelê dat ek hulle in die Leer sal onderrig en sal laat onderrig.
Die ideaal is daarom nie ‘n staatskool nie, ook nie ‘n kerkskool nie, maar ‘n ouerskool. Omstandighede het daartoe gelei dat daar staatskole is. Die vertrekpunt van die debat is ``capturing the hearts and minds of our children.’’ (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[She asked the critical question: To whom do our children belong? Do they belong to the state or to the parent? I would like to elaborate on this. The parent has the primary responsibility. At the baptism of each of my five children, none of whom is living at home any longer, I made a promise before God that I would instruct them and have them educated in accordance with biblical teachings.
The ideal, then, is not a public school, or a church school, but a parent school. Circumstances led to the emergence of public schools. The point of departure of the debate is ``capturing the hearts and minds of our children’’.]
Do we want schizophrenic children, learning one value system at home and another one at school? Definitely not!
Daarom my pleidooi: ‘n versterking vir ouerinspraak; ‘n eie etos en karakter vir skole wat deur die ouers bepaal word. Dit is dalk nog die beste moontlik in ons omstandighede vandag, by ‘n onafhanklike skool.
Die African Charter erken die reg van privaatskole volgens eie etos en karakter. Ons Grondwet voeg daarby: ``op eie koste’’, en dit is diskriminerend. Daar is universele waardes, morele waardes, billikheid en respek. Hierdie waardes geld vir almal. Ons onderskryf hulle, maar daar is ook spesifieke waardes wat nie minder belangrik is nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Hence my plea: stronger parental input; an own ethos and character for schools determined by the parents. Under today’s circumstances that may best be possible at an independent school.
The African Charter acknowledges the right of private schools to their own ethos and character. Our Constitution adds ``at their own expense’’, and that is discriminatory. There are universal values, moral values, equity and respect. These values apply to everyone. We endorse them, but there are also special values which are no less important.]
We must guard against moral, cultural and linguistic imperialism. South Africa is not a homogeneous country, and never will be.
Ons is ryk in verskeidenheid. Kom ons erken dit. Dit help nie ons het ‘n artikel 185 en ‘n artikel 31 oor vryheid van godsdiens nie, en ons kinders se harte en gedagtes word gevange gehou op ‘n wyse wat hierdie unieke waardes binne ‘n geslag of twee laat versand in die vaal woestyn van algemeenheid nie.
Baie dankie aan mev Southgate vir ‘n uitstekende onderwerp. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[We are rich in diversity. Let us acknowledge this. It does not help us to have a section 185 and a section 31 on freedom of religion, while our children’s hearts and thoughts are held captive in a manner which will lead to the silting up of these unique values in the pale desert of generality within a generation or two.
Thank you very much to Mrs Southgate for an excellent topic.]
Mr K M N GIGABA: Chairperson, time has passed and with it the rotten ideas that defined the black youth as mere hewers of wood and drawers of water, and taught them that equality with the white man was not their destiny. Gone, too, are the days when the hearts and minds of our youth were to be captured through the Christian National Education, Bantu Education and other forms of repression intended to coerce the majority to believe in the twisted logic of apartheid supremacy. That was a tragedy and a crime.
Thank God time has passed and onward ever we continue to march happily as masters of our own destiny, determined to change the moorings of old society and construct a better future. This future, whose architects and constructors we must become, is not some remote period somewhere on the distant horizons, but it is what we are building today.
To start building it, the youth of our country must do more than just wait passively for the positive results of the processes of progressive change. But, neither must our country seek to capture their hearts and minds. Rather, we must inspire them to action and to unite in action for their own development and that of their country as a whole, indeed, to build their future themselves.
The possibility exists today to make further advances in raising the level of social consciousness of our youth, through education, to prepare them to fulfil their tasks. I want to stress that our nation cannot accept that its youth must traverse through this given space and time as a purposeless generation. Accordingly, we must proceed from the determination to take firm responsibility for our future, convinced that the future of our people and their prospects for a better life depend on the role which we shall play at this time.
We, too, like the majority of our people, must constantly ponder: ``What can I do to build a better South Africa?’’ Deep in our conscience, as youth, must exist a strong conviction that a youth that does not value their country does not deserve their future. Therefore, we should become activists in the historic process to fundamentally transform ours into a truly nonracial, nonsexist, united, democratic, prosperous and caring society.
Central to the pursuit of this strategic objective is the creation of a cadre of South African patriot who understands the tasks and obligations that accompany such a difficult challenge. From the ranks of our youth must emerge a cadre that champions national unity and a better life. These young women and men should have a great sense of duty towards the society that we are creating.
They must possess a deep sense of social responsibility, civic consciousness, social discipline and a deep hatred for all discrimination, oppression and exploitation. They must be militants against poverty, illiteracy, diseases and combatants for nonracialism and nonsexism, as well as for the attainment of the objectives of the African century. Each and every one of them must thrive to be best at everything, knowing that their high ambitions, strong will and hard work is what our country needs to succeed.
It goes without saying that the achievement of these goals depends, among others, on the role that education will play to both empower the youth with the skills and knowledge requisite for the fulfilment of all these challenges, and to lead this youth through their own lessons, experiences and mistakes to arrive at correct conclusions and develop the values consonant with the type of society that we are building.
Our education system should be adequately and strategically utilised as an instrument for social and economic emancipation. For this reason, Tirisano must succeed. Outcomes-based education must succeed. The new moral education plan must also succeed. Each and every one of us must do their part to support these programmes. Only in this way can we succeed to develop among our youth thinkers and not mere stooges and zombies whose hearts and minds have been captured. Those of us who fight for freedom fight as well for the freedom of the mind, body, heart and soul.
Of course, education must be reinforced in this effort by, among others, an extensive national youth service programme which must both empower and rally the youth into action. For this, we cannot employ fascist and instrumentalist strategies. [Applause.]
Mr L M GREEN: Mr Chairperson, hon Ministers and hon members, we believe that all freedoms have limitations. Even this very House is governed by rules. So, when we talk about capturing the hearts and minds of our children for the future, we do not speak about this in a negative sense.
The ACDP believes that every education system promotes a particular world- view. And this is the point we want to make: It presents a certain perspective and selection of history, of values and practices.
Our party believes that the control of education should be in the hands of parents. The Bible teaches us that our children belong to God and are entrusted to us by Him, to bring them up in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord.
Parents are responsible under God to oversee the teachers, the textbooks and the syllabuses that will shape and fill their minds for 12 years of teaching. All parents must be involved in the governing structures of their local schools and take an active role in the education of the young according to biblical principles.
We support the culture of learning and teaching, but a culture of learning cannot adequately be instilled in our children if classrooms are taken over by disorder, and teachers refuse to teach.
The question we need some clarity on is whether education is a right or a privilege. I tend to believe that it is more than just these. Education is an unconditional responsibility to impart knowledge and values from one generation to the next. The Bible teaches that. I quote:
You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, while you lie down, and when you rise up.
So, it refers to values, norms and standards.
Education is an ongoing process which involves all sectors of a society for the benefit of all its citizens. Educational principles are carried over to be utilised to promote life and development. Education is a social ethic in responsibility demanding equitable distributive governance with the intent to establish responsible citizenship.
I wish to list four standards of education which will impact on the hearts and the minds of our children. The first standard is excellence. Education is the transmitter for promoting human dignity and enhance human creativity or generally speaking to nurture within humanity a certain quality of enablement. Standards of excellence is essentially implementing the best methods and assistance to develop the highest possible qualities innate to an individual’s capacity. Anything less is degradation of the human’s image as God intends it to be.
The second standard is accessibility to education. Education represents the glory of knowledge and wisdom and the withholding of this splendour from any human being is to deny God’s work within the development of an individual. To have access to education is thus an undeniable right, and the withdrawing of this right is unlawful and criminal.
The School Register of Needs Survey has brought to light the shocking disparities and educational backlogs which plaque our nation. This should not be the problem of Government alone, but all institutions, including the Church, should address this. [Interjections.]
Mr N J GOGOTYA: Mr Chairperson, is the hon member prepared to take a question on what he said: ``All these churches during the age of christian apartheid?’’
Mr L M GREEN: Unfortunately, I only have one minute left, and I would like to finish my speech.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: You may proceed, hon member.
Mr L M GREEN: All education programmes must affect the drive that supports character building and give rise to reasonable expectations of positive development and change. Education that is not effective in generating growth in an individual or society is wasteful and misdirected.
The next standard of education is ownership of education. Education should be based on experience and the methodology of human social development. People must feel a sense of oneness with the roots and process of the educational framework they are involved with. They should be participants in the evolution of the educational process.
Let us talk a bit about results and outcomes. Education is value based. It should also be independent, yet interrelational to the norms and standards of a person or people. Its philosophical roots stand within the activities and milieu of a person or society’s experiences. But these roots are not necessarily dictated by such experiences. In other words, educational processes and outcomes should be inextricably intertwined with the moral norms and values of our society. Yet, under close scrutiny, the signs thereof should be traced to an independent and universal root index. If we truly want quality and better education for our children, let us involve all our parents and restore order and discipline.
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, hon members of the National Assembly, I was looking forward to this debate, because last year the department published the Values in Education document, which is the first of its kind anywhere in the world, to encourage a debate on what kind of value systems should apply as our school system is evolving and changing with greater integration.
I must confess, therefore, that there was some disappointment about this debate. And it began with Mrs Southgate’s extraordinary essay on the kind of school and value system we had, in a kind of giggly, school-mistressy sort of way. She turned to some obscure socialist writers. When we talk about capturing the hearts and minds of children, we do not mean the sinister intelligence and propaganda efforts through which the apartheid regime attempted, with laughably little effect, to convert our people en masse to support apartheid and to make them cheerleaders of their own oppression. That is where we should have started off. That was an attempt to capture the minds and hearts, as they regrettably did under the guise of Christian National Education. It did not work then. Therefore, we are now here to discuss a new and happier battle for the hearts and minds of our youth. We are here to counterbalance loose talk about a lost generation, and to ensure that a new generation does not go astray.
It is this battle that we are talking about, which is part of a broader process. It takes within its sweep the large subjects of postapartheid history, with the visible processes of facing up to our past, which began with our Constitution, then continued with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Human Rights Commission conference on racism, and progressed further this year with the world conference we held on a global scale, reflecting what that famous historian W E B Dubois meant when he said that the problem of the twentieth century is a problem of the colour line.
I would like to say to Gen Viljoen that we have to learn about the past without being obsessed, so that our children can understand a value system of nonracialism and nonsexism. Therefore, when we talk of the battle for the hearts and minds of our youth, let us not relapse into the notions of that old battle, ie the sinister mind control that apartheid and Christian nationalism tried to orchestrate, and failed. Also, let us not reduce this to a parochial exercise in righteous and evangelical fervour with naïve attempts at legislating moral hygiene and so on, as it were.
I would like to say to Mrs Southgate that our ethos must be more open, more tolerant and more understanding than that. Having said all that, I would like to add that we must be very careful, because when we begin with certain dogmas, we may reproduce, in the future, the very things we are against, and particularly the extraordinary things we do not talk about, such as the amount of precocious sexual activity that takes place. The first ever survey that was carried out revealed the amount of exploitation of women and girls that takes place and that one in three sexually active boys and one in six girls, I believe, can demand sex, even if their partner does not want to have it.
This is the reality of our country. The extraordinary amount of abuse and activity that takes place is not invented by the movies or books, but by us, because we are not prepared to be honest with ourselves. We put piety before the interests of our young people. Therefore, we must forever challenge the entrenched social and moral authorities that gained a hold in this country through force of arms and values that are the opposite of humane. We must promote a spirit of questioning and enquiry, a readiness to interrogate authority and dogma which seems to conflict with fundamental human rights.
They banned books. We should not ban books. They took the name of God not merely in vain, but actually in pursuit of an earthbound damnation. They created a normal and political hell on earth, especially on Africa’s southern tip, and they did this in the name of God. Look at the constitution before 1994. [Applause.]
We should be careful how we invoke divine ends. We must beware of what we do in public policy as self-appointed spokespersons of divinity, and of those who travel this way. They developed a kind of Taliban state of mind, which sought to destroy innocence in the guise of moral re-armament. Our politics are not dogmatically secular. Our Constitution’s preamble states: May God protect our people. Nkosi sikelel’ iAfrika is very much part of our anthem and our ethos. The Constitution, full of the ethical values that drove our liberation, does not prescribe the confessional ideology of a single church. The Constitution must be embraced in its entirety, it must become part of our lives. It provides the core values that should inform our national ideology.
We should never forget what our Constitution tells us. We must not be selective. We are the same, with the right to be the same as far as political rights are concerned. The Constitution also invokes the fundamental principle that we also have the right to be different from each other in our belief systems that many be expressed through religion, in our language, culture and sexual orientation. Yet, no one compels us to be different. No one compels anyone, for instance, to have an abortion, to read erotic books, to listen to obscure music or to watch Yizo Yizo on television. These are choices we make and the Constitution allows us to make a choice. [Laughter.]
We should remember that when people say we should have rights with responsibilities, it is a cop-out. Most of our people, as I was trying to show, are humiliated in shameful initiation ceremonies in schools, nogal in our places of highest learning; not in one, but many universities, where the barbaric system of violence, humiliation and alcohol has destroyed at least one young man’s life in the last few days.
So we must talk about rights first. And when recognition of these rights takes place, the responsibility comes in a sane and civilised society. Our children must learn to take responsibility for their actions, to think for themselves and not to be afraid to confront the challenges that face us in our changing society. Neither can our children be weak or hide behind religion and other belief systems, and not put right what is currently going wrong in our society. Neither they nor we can afford to blindly put our political trust in the hands of a single political or religious party.
We need to ensure that we instil in our children and youth a common set of values not entirely sanitised, not like the milk that has no taste or flavour. We may want to have a homogenous society without making a sanitised society. We should neither subscribe by any faith, nor be diminished by chauvinism. Of course religion plays an important part in the lives of the majority of our people. But no single religion - or for that matter any absence of religion - in our diverse land, can offset the need for a specific system of values to which we can all subscribe.
In our private lives, we must subscribe to the most fundamental values. But in our public and secular lives, we have to work out a common set of values
- and this is directed at Gen Constand Viljoen - that does not destroy, limit or circumscribe the basic values that one may believe in. So, rather than seeking to capture our children’s hearts and minds, we must reject that. Instead of imprisoning them in a set mould, we should be seeking to liberate them from the tyranny of authoritarianism, oppression, superstition and peer pressure, particularly sexual behaviour.
We want our children, particularly girls, to feel free from the threats of sexual abuse and violence and the scourge of harassment and abuse. I am sorry that the public representatives and our moral leaders do not play a bigger part in ensuring a protection of the innocence of our people, the right of our young girls and women to say: ``No! No! No!’’ So, we must not capture anyone. We should protect their innocence, and this can only happen when we teach our children through the precept, and more importantly, through the example of our own behaviour, to respect and value others regardless of race, gender or creed.
That is the world and the kind of value system we want. We must promote that, not in the sense of false pride, but as part of the achievement of our new society. This is not the same thing as arrogance. Arrogance is a reaction and pride is an action. This kind of moral regeneration, the RDP of the soul that Mr Mandela spoke of, is very much part of the value system that should hold us together; a lot of pride, with the new patriotism which is the direct opposite of chauvinism and xenophobia.
I commend this House and the ACDP for beginning this debate. It is only the beginning of the debate and I hope that we can, in a year’s time, take into account the enormous intellectual, moral fibre that exists in our society to build and create a culture in South Africa where we cherish all the children of the nation equally. [Applause.] Debate concluded.
The House adjourned at 17:26. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
FRIDAY, 9 MARCH 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) On 9 March 2001 the following Bill, at the request of the
Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, was introduced in the
National Council of Provinces by the Select Committee on Land and
Environmental Affairs. It was referred to the Joint Tagging
Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160:
(i) National Forest and Fire Laws Amendment Bill [B 14 - 2001]
(National Council of Provinces - sec 76) - (Select Committee
on Land and Environmental Affairs - National Council of
Provinces) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior notice of
its introduction published in Government Gazette No 22065 of
16 February 2001.]
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
(a) Report of the Registrar of Short-Term Insurance for 1999-2000.
(b) Report of the Registrar of Long-Term Insurance for 1999-2000.
TUESDAY, 13 MARCH 2001 ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 13 March 2001 in terms of
Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bill as a section 75
Bill:
(i) South African Boxing Bill [B 13 - 2001] (National Assembly
- sec 75) - (Portfolio Committee on Sport and Recreation -
National Assembly).
(2) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 13 March 2001 in terms of
Joint Rule 160(4), classified the following Bill as a section 76
Bill:
(i) National Forest and Fire Laws Amendment Bill [B 14 - 2001]
(National Council of Provinces - sec 76) - (Select Committee
on Land and Environmental Affairs - National Council of
Provinces). National Assembly:
- The Speaker:
The following changes have been made to the membership of Committees,
viz:
Agriculture and Land Affairs:
Appointed: Abram, S.
Education:
Appointed: Mbadi, L M; Frolick, C T (Alt).
Ethics and Members' Interests:
Appointed: Blanché, J P I.
Finance:
Appointed: Mothiba, L C (Alt).
Discharged: Frolick, C T.
Foreign Affairs:
Appointed: Van der Merwe, J H.
Discharged: Zondi, K M.
Health:
Appointed: Maseka, J T.
Discharged: Naidoo, S.
Justice and Constitutional Development:
Appointed: Maseka, J T; Mabeta, M E.
Discharged: Ramodike, M N.
Minerals and Energy:
Appointed: Blanché, J P I (Alt); Mothiba, L C (Alt).
Public Accounts:
Appointed: Mothiba, L C.
Discharged: Naidoo, S.
Public Service and Administration:
Appointed: Abrahams, T.
Public Works:
Appointed: Mothiba, L C.
Discharged: Abram, S.
Water Affairs and Forestry:
Appointed: Mothiba, L C.
Discharged: Naidoo, S.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly:
Bills:
- The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism:
(1) Wetsontwerp op die Suid-Afrikaanse Weerdiens [W 54 - 2000].
The South African Weather Service Bill [B 54 - 2000] (National
Assembly - sec 75) was introduced by the Minister of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism on 22 August 2000 and referred to the
Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Appropriation Bill [B 10 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 77), dated 13 March 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the Appropriation
Bill [B 10 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 77), referred to it and
classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a money Bill, reports its
proceedings, as follows:
A. Introduction
The Committee held hearings on the Budget from 22 February 2001 to
2 March 2001, and wishes to express its appreciation to all
participants for their contributions. Written presentations
submitted form part of the records of the Committee Section. The
Committee would also like to express its appreciation to the
Minister of Finance, the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Director-
General of Finance, the Commissioner of the South African Revenue
Service, the Chairperson of the Financial and Fiscal Commission,
and their staffs, for their presence and contributions during the
hearings. A list containing the names of those who made oral
submission is included in part D of this Report.
B. Overview of 2001-02 Budget
The Minister of Finance presented the 2001-02 Budget as a turning
point in South Africa's fiscal priorities. After several years
during which the nation's macro-economic fundamentals were aligned
through fiscal discipline, this Budget now begins to move fiscal
policy forward to the next stage of focusing on the micro-economic
priorities that are so important to growing our economy.
1. Macro-economic outlook
The National Treasury has predicted stronger economic growth
and declining inflation over the medium-term. However, the
economy remains vulnerable to external shocks. The two major
concerns reported to the Committee were the potential global
repercussions of a protracted US economic downturn affecting
South Africa's economy and the risk a rise in oil prices could
hold for inflation and economic growth.
(1) GDP growth
The National Treasury has predicted a relatively good
economic forecast for South Africa over the medium term.
The basic underpinnings of the Budget's assumptions are
that we will experience an average growth rate of 3,5%
for the next three years. This is supported by several
factors, including stronger growth on the demand side,
further productivity improvements on the supply side, and
real growth in government spending. Stronger household
spending, improving domestic and foreign business
confidence, positive long-term capital flows, growth in
investment, and a competitive currency, are the key
assumptions underlying this anticipated growth in
domestic consumption and exports.
Annual GDP Growth Rate
* 3,0% in 2000
* 3,5% in 2001
* 3,7% in 2002
* 3,3% in 2003
(2) Inflation
After peaking late last year, CPIX inflation is also
expected to decline to within the government's target
range of 3,0% to 6,0% by 2002:
Annual Growth in CPIX Inflation
* 7,7% in 2000
* 6,6% in 2001
* 5,3% in 2002
* 4,7% in 2003
(3) Other economic indicators
The Treasury reported that last year -
(a) capital market interest rates fell, according to the
January 2001 R150, to around 11,9%;
(b) the rand lost about 9,5% of its value against the US
dollar;
(c) non-gold exports rose from 11,5% of GDP in 1990 to
18,8% in 2000; and
(d) real merchandise imports also rose from 12,0% in
1990 to 19,8% in 2000.
2. Projected Budget Framework
While continuing to maintain the fiscal discipline that helped
to bring South Africa to the current state of macro-economic
stability, this Budget expresses the view that we are now
ready to undertake a more expansionary economic policy with a
greater emphasis on micro-economic issues. The primary
outcomes of this are realised in increased expenditures and
tax relief, largely due to savings realised from a diminishing
deficit.
(1) Increased expenditures
Spending on public services has increased significantly
from the projections made in the 2000-01 Budget. Fiscal
Year 2001-02 spending is increasing by 9,9% from last
year. Over the next three years this spending on non-
interest items will experience real growth of some 3,8%
each year. In rand terms, this means that spending will
be R10,2 billion greater in 2001-02 and R16 billion
greater in 2002-03 than projected in the 2000-01 Budget.
Medium-Term Total Expenditures
* R258,3 billion in 2001/02
* R277,3 billion in 2002/03
* R297,5 billion in 2003/04
The money for this enhanced spending is made available
from increased revenue receipts and declining debt
service costs, brought about by the reduction of deficits
and the utilisation of proceeds from the restructuring of
State assets.
The Minister's Budget Speech lists the basic public
expenditure objectives in South Africa:
(a) Economic growth and job creation.
(b) Reducing inequality and promoting social
development.
(c) Strengthening safety and justice.
Highlights of increased spending over the medium-term:
* Local government restructuring and delivery of basic
services - R2,6 billion.
* Increase in old age/disability grants by R30 to R570
per month.
* Increase in child support by R10 to R110 per month.
* Provincial Social Service delivery - R16 billion.
* Criminal Justice - R4 billion for more personnel,
vehicles and salary.
* Supplementary infrastructure investment and
maintenance - R7,8 billion.
* SARS and Foreign Affairs - R2 billion.
(2) Lower taxes
In addition to the greater expenditure on public
services, the fiscal discipline of the last several years
has allowed net tax reductions of R 9,1 billion. This is
largely realised in decreases in the personal income tax
for those making under R80 000 per year, but also in
forms of several targeted tax reductions intended to spur
growth by stimulating household spending and investment
in certain economic sectors.
R12,8 billion in tax cuts and incentives:
(a) Personal income tax reductions principally to those
earning under R80 000 per year. This includes no
personal income tax for workers making less than R23
000 per year (R8,3 billion).
(b) Wage tax incentive (R600 million).
(c) Targeted incentives for industrial projects meeting
specific criteria (R3 billion) over four years.
(d) Tax privileges for small businesses (R40 million).
(e) Reduction in estate duty and donations tax by 20%
(R51 million).
(f) Elimination of VAT on paraffin (R400 million).
(g) Extension of diesel fuel concession to the primary
production sector for off-road diesel consumption
(R417 million).
(h) Raising the exemption in interest and dividend
income from R3 000 to R4 000, and to R5 000 for those
over 65 (R200 million).
And some tax increases and revenue-raising tax policy
changes:
(a) Increase levies on alcohol and tobacco (R779
million).
(b) A below inflation rate increase in fuel levy (R363
million).
(c) Increase road accident fund levy (R437 million).
(d) Increase in skills levy by 0,5% to 1,0%.
(e) Capital gains tax to become effective on 1/10/01.
(f) Closing income tax loopholes.
(g) Review tax on banks.
(h) Unbundling transactions.
(i) Change in Eskom's tax status.
Revenue collection exceeded expectations in 1999-2000 by
R7,7 billion and are expected to exceed 2000-01 estimates
by R3 billion, even with the new tax cuts.
Estimated medium-term revenue collection:
* R233,4 billion in 2001/02
* R252,9 billion in 2002/03
* R273,1 billion in 2003/04
(3) Diminishing deficits
Fiscal discipline, declining annual deficits,
restructuring of State assets, reorganisation of
government liabilities and anticipated economic growth
will contribute to the decline of our net national loan
debt in proportion to the size of the economy, reducing
the debt burden from 48% of GDP in 1996 to 44,3 in 2001,
eventually falling to 39,1% in 2004.
The Budget deficit as a percentage of GDP was 2,4% last
year, and will be -
* 2,5% GDP in 2001/02
* 2,3% GDP in 2002/03
* 2,1% GDP in 2003/04
The benefits of this can already be seen in lower debt
servicing costs, releasing funds for greater public
service expenditure and tax reductions. This decline in
government borrowing has the potential to stimulate the
economy by increasing the overall savings rate and making
the South African economy more attractive to investment.
All in all, debt service costs are expected to fall from
5,5% of GDP in 1999-2000 to 4,4% of GDP in 2003-04.
3. Better documentation
The Treasury's initial efforts to bring the Budget
documentation in line with the requirements of the PFMA are
commendable. The Estimate of Expenditure is a fresh start,
with government departments moving towards an output-based
budgeting system and promoting public sector accountability.
While recognising that it is still in its early stages, there
is a definite need to improve the way in which outputs,
outcomes and measurable objectives are classified. A dialogue
between departments and the corresponding committees in
Parliament should lead to expenditure statements that make
clear the government's objectives, policies and priorities and
assist Parliament in its oversight responsibility.
The need for changes in the focus of national economic data
surveys to bring them in line with the current realities of
the economy was highlighted by the Black Business Council
(BBC) and Dr Iraj Abedian of Standard Bank, with particular
reference to the inclusion of data on the informal and
tertiary sectors.
4. Budget reform
Section 77 of the Constitution mandates that legislation be
enacted giving Parliament the power to amend money bills. In
protest against the lack of progress on this and other Budget
reform issues, Cosatu, for the fourth year in a row, has opted
not to appear at the Committee's hearings. In a letter
addressed to the Chairperson, Mr Neil Coleman, the head of
Cosatu's parliamentary office, has called for the Committee to
"ensure the urgent tabling of an adequate Money Bills
Amendment Procedure Bill." Additionally, BusinessMap called
for further procedural improvements in the Budget process,
with more parliamentary involvement prior to the tabling of
the Budget, thus making the Budget more meaningful for all
South Africans.
In response to these comments, the Committee agreed to send a
letter to the Speaker requesting advice on whether such
legislation must be tabled by the Minister of Finance, or
whether it can be tabled by a committee or any Member of
Parliament.
C. Main priorities of Budget
The main priorities that emerged from the Committee's hearings on
the 2001-02 Budget were the following: Ongoing restructuring and
reduction of public sector debt; economic growth and job creation;
poverty alleviation; and revenue reform.
1. Stabilising debt and reducing Budget deficit: Contributing to
lower interest rates and fiscal sustainability
Figures supplied by the National Treasury show that the strict
fiscal discipline practiced over the last several Budgets has
finally brought about much needed economic stabilisation.
Limited government spending and higher revenue receipts have
allowed the government to steadily bring down the rate of
deficit spending. Additionally, the nearly R19 billion in
revenue already realised from the restructuring of public
enterprises has contributed to reducing the deficit.
This programme of stabilisation has had multiple beneficial
effects. Firstly, it has helped to bring down long-term
interest rates, lowering the cost of capital. It has also
emphasised to the international investor community that South
Africa's economy is stable and its management is steady and
disciplined. Most importantly, the success of the
stabilisation programme now permits the focus of the Budget
debate to shift to micro-economic issues by bringing the debt
servicing costs downward and releasing more funds for
increased public service expenditure and lower taxes.
The business sector's evidence before the Committee lauded the
"exemplary" management of the national debt. Die Afrikaanse
Handelsinstituut (AHI) pointed out that for the first time in
decades the management of debt is under control. Hovever, Dr
Abedian noted that while macro-economic stabilisation has been
achieved and the fundamentals are in place, economic
leadership is needed to capitalise on this in terms of
transforming it into increased employment and poverty
reduction. BusinessMap also suggested that there was space for
more expansion in public spending policies.
(1) Advantages of managing debt down
According to the National Treasury, the steady reduction
of the Budget deficit has freed up over R10 billion in
the medium-term for additional Public Service
expenditure. As recently as three years ago, in the 1999-
2000 financial year, interest on the debt consumed over
20% of government spending; now that figure is down to
16,4% and declining. The South African Chamber of
Business (Sacob) has endorsed the Treasury's projection
of R10 billion being made available as a result of debt
reduction. Evidence was given that this estimate may even
be slightly too conservative.
Besides making more money available in the Budget for
Public Service expenditure, there are additional macro-
economic benefits realised from reducing the government
debt. It will contribute to the lowering of long-term
interest rates, allow the government to have a "cushion"
for bad economic times, and enhance international
investor confidence.
(2) Restructuring of State assets
A key aspect of paying down the debt has been the
restructuring of State assets. To date, the Treasury
shows that nearly R19 billion has been realised from
asset restructuring, of which nearly R12,5 billion has
been paid to the exchequer for debt reduction.
In the next year the Treasury estimates that R18 billion
will be realised from the further restructuring of State
assets. The most significant portions of this will be
made up from the IPO of Telkom, sale of M-Cell shares,
and revenue from the restructuring of Denel and Sasria.
In view of the lower than expected receipts from recent
restructuring programmes, much attention was given to the
Treasury's estimate during the hearings. While the
general feeling was that the R18 billion was a reasonable
target, the AHI felt that a more realistic figure would
be R15 billion. On the contrary, Sacob and BusinessMap
endorsed the Treasury's view that the R18 billion
estimate was a rather conservative one. The primary
concern was how much the estimate relied upon the Telkom
IPO, especially considering the weakened state of the
global telecommunications market.
The BBC wanted to ensure that black empowerment remains a
priority during government restructuring, with special
emphasis on small businesses.
2. Impact on economic growth and job creation
The 2001-02 Budget addresses these two issues through three
primary approaches: Investment in capital and government
administrative infrastructure, targeted tax incentives to
promote growth and job creation, and investment in human
resources to build the supply of skilled workers in South
Africa.
Infrastructure investment
(1) Increased capital infrastructure investment
The primary aspect of this fiscal programme is the R7,8
billion promised over the medium-term for new
infrastructure, infrastructure maintenance and
rehabilitation required in response to recent disasters.
The government sees such a programme as reinforcing the
foundations on which sustainable growth is built. Such
infrastructure investment will lower the costs of
production, transportation, and communication. Also, the
spending will directly contribute to job creation. This
investment was welcomed by all, both in terms of short-
term job creation and improving infrastructural assets.
Capital expenditure by the government has been decreasing
significantly, so this reversal is welcome.
There were some concerns about this ambitious programme,
largely directed at the capacity of the government to
fully deliver. For example, Idasa's submission to the
Committee particularly emphasises concerns with the
capacity to spend these funds through the medium-term.
They point out that there has been incomplete planning
regarding the destination of the funds and that national
and provincial departments are still significantly
underspending their budgets. This is especially of great
concern since the largest allocations under this
programme are going to departments which have not been
able to spend their budgets. Similarly, the BBC raised a
note of caution regarding the capacity of local
government to deliver sustainable employment through this
mechanism, on the basis of the poor performance of
similar projects previously implemented.
In response to such questions from the Committee, the
National Treasury emphasised the use of conditional and
matching grants with local and provincial governments to
encourage the proper spending of the money. Also, most of
the money is going to be spent in the outer years of the
medium-term, giving governments adequate time to prepare
and plan the implementation of the programme.
(2) Improving government administrative capacity
Capital infrastructure is not the only infrastructure
investment that the government has a responsibility to
undertake. The government has seen the need to address
weaknesses in the administrative infrastructure in order
to alleviate service delivery problems. Also, government
institutions have to be made more efficient in performing
their duties in support of economic growth and job
creation. This problem is a combination of the lack of
capacity and inadequate funds. Major problems pointed out
to the Committee were the failures in Home Affairs to
allow for a more simplified way of bringing in non-South
African skilled workers who could contribute to the
growth of the economy.
The primary allocations to address these problems are as
follows:
(a) R4 billion over the medium term to address
crime/criminal justice.
(b) R2 billion for Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs and
SARS.
(c) R2,4 billion extra for local government to increase
infrastructure spending.
These expenditures are intended to improve the government
administration in criminal justice, streamline the much
maligned process of granting work permits to non-South
Africans, improve revenue collection and assistance to
taxpayers, and help local governments cope with the
additional administrative and governance responsibilities
facing them.
Tax incentives
There was a general welcome for the South African revenue
system coming broadly in line with international norms
and addressing outstanding equity issues, although it was
recommended that further simplification would enhance
effectiveness in terms of both revenue collection and
management. This section addresses the evidence given on
tax incentives intended to spur growth in the economy and
job creation. Further comments on the tax reforms
outlined in the 2001-02 Budget are discussed under the
tax reform section.
Much of the tax relief was targeted to the extremely poor
and those who earn less than R80 000 a year. These will
be more fully discussed under the poverty alleviation
section, but, according to the National Treasury, part of
the advantage of lowering personal income tax and other
incentives, such as zeroing the VAT on illuminating
paraffin, is to encourage higher household savings rate,
or at least a further reduction in household
indebtedness. There is also a belief that these tax
breaks could lead to an increase in consumer spending and
demand. All of these results would hopefully increase the
growth in the economy. Pierre du Toit, formerly of the
Katz Commission, disagreed, arguing that such tax breaks
do not affect savings, but just move them around. Others
pointed out that previous tax decreases were followed by
significant reductions in household debt, although a fair
amount of last year's decrease was consumed by rising
transport costs. The AHI also said that the rising tax
burden in South Africa severely affected the savings
rate, and it is therefore good to reverse this trend.
(3) Investment incentives
The National Treasury, through extensive discussions with
the Department of Trade and Industry, has agreed to R3
billion in tax allowances for strategic investments over
the next four years. The intent is to encourage both
foreign and domestic investment in the economy. Included
in the programme are initial investment allowances of 50%
or 100% for strategic projects. The allowance will be
available for the first three years following the
investment. These incentives will be allocated by an
adjudication committee on the basis of qualitative and
quantitative criteria defining strategic investment
purposes.
There was some significant skepticism regarding such
incentives. Mr du Toit commented that they should be
implemented from the bottom up, encouraging growth and
development in small and medium businesses, and not to
forget about targeting domestic investment.
The BBC was also skeptical of such incentives, concerned
that the emphasis would not be on black empowerment. The
BBC feels that black empowerment should be primary
criteria for receipt of such investment. The AHI
commented that it is possible that the money could be
better spent on further infrastructure improvement.
Mr du Toit did give some criteria of giving such tax
incentives: They should be legitimate and necessary, have
an immediately foreseeable impact pass a reasonable
cost/benefit analysis, and be kept under control. Also,
he was more in favour of giving tax incentives as opposed
to cash subsidies. However, Sacob pointed out that tax
incentives.
(4) Wage incentives
The National Treasury has set aside R600 million for 2001-
02 for economically and administratively efficient tax
measures that will encourage job creation by reducing the
cost of hiring new workers and of offering learnerships.
This will have positive effects on other government
programmes and ensure their benefits are more widely
available. It should be fully operational on 1 October
2001.
Most of those who appeared before the Committee were
reluctant to offer extensive commentary because most
details about the programme were not yet available.
However, a number of commentators expressed reservations
about the efficacy of such tax incentives and whether it
was wise to add more taxes.
(5) Small business
R40 million has been set aside for an accelerated
depreciation scheme for small businesses, allowing the
full cost of an investment to be deducted in the year it
was purchased. Ideally, this proposal will improve the
cash flow of growing small businesses, enhancing job
creation in this sector.
Those who commented before the Committee, welcomed this
relief for small business, but a few other points were
brought to the Committee's attention regarding issues
affecting small businesses. For instance, the AHI pointed
out that the burden of compliance for small businesses is
often quite high. While additional tax relief is welcome,
it also adds complexity to calculating the taxes for such
businesses. There are some fears that this additional
complexity may be stifling growth in this area. Mr Hassan
Kajie requested that small business be allowed to use a
cash basis, rather than accrual accounting, which will
reduce their need for chartered accountants and should
speed up the processing of tax returns.
The BBC is concerned that the Budget really is not
helping most small businesses. A key concern of theirs is
that many small businesses have a turnover above R1
million, but are left out of most relief measures. They
argue that the cap on small businesses should be raised
to R2 million.
(6) Diesel fuel reduction for primary producers
Significant relief on diesel concessions will be granted
to primary producers in the agricultural, forestry and
mining sectors. This concession will come into effect on
4 July 2001, cutting the tax burden on diesel fuel by
42,1 cents a litre, or 41,5% of the total tax burden.
There was some concern that the concession will come too
late this year to benefit farmers in winter rainfall
areas. The concern was noted by the Treasury, but the
response was that time was needed to ensure that adequate
administration was in place to minimise the risk of
fraud.
(7) Additional business concerns about taxes
Most of this discussion is dealt with under the tax
relief Section, but there were some concerns from those
who gave evidence about the economic impact of certain
tax reforms and some desired changes that were not
realised in this Budget.
Many in the business community expressed concern that the
corporate tax rate was too high and should be brought
down to be more in line with those of other emerging
markets. However, concern was also expressed that if
South Africa started cutting corporate taxes, they would
be engaging in a destructive "race to the bottom" of
corporate tax rates. The National Treasury argued that
South Africa's corporate taxes were in line with
international norms. There were also concerns about the
implementation of capital gains tax (CGT), and the AHI
expressed continued unhappiness with the STC.
Some commentators noted that the difference between the
highest PIT rate of 42% and the corporate tax rate of
37,8% (when including STC) created a situation for tax
arbitrage. They argued that a cut in PIT at the highest
level would bring this more in line. Also, the AHI felt
that there was need to re-examine the South African
highest marginal PIT and move it to within international
norms, where it should kick in at around R1 million
instead of the current R215 000.
(8) Human resource investment
Limited skills levels within the labour market are
inhibiting growth prospects, and excluding many from
employment prospects in the growing tertiary sector. Many
commented that there is an urgent need for increased
investment in strategic skills development, in line with
the changing requirements of the economy. Dr Abedian
noted that this ongoing reduction in demand for labour is
a structural feature of the economy, particularly in the
unskilled sector. Hence specific measures are required to
stimulate both economic growth and job creation.
(9) Skills development levy
This Budget sees the increase in the skills development
levy from 0,5% to 1%, effective 1 April 2001. This is
expected to raise collections from R1,3 billion in 2000-
01 to R2,8 billion in 2001-02.
The increase in the skills levy received a mixed
reaction. Concern was expressed about its effectiveness
and about current mechanisms for delivering labour skills
development. R430 million was not claimed last year, and
it is feared that many companies are merely seeing this
as another tax and not taking advantage of the
opportunities it presents for increased training
subsidies. Idasa also fears that the skills development
programme focuses on those who are already employed,
occurring at the expense of the poor, illiterate and
unemployed.
Also, simplified incentives for skills training are
needed (in place of the current complex mechanism of
claiming back training costs which actually acts as a
disincentive to utilise the funds because of the
unclaimed administrative costs), and training should
focus on strategic skills currently required by the
economy.
Other areas where skills need to be addressed, are by
increasing investment in improving basic human capital
through support to the education system, and while these
initiatives will deliver a skilled labour force in the
medium term, the importation of foreign expertise needs
to be facilitated in the short term by streamlining the
process of obtaining work permits and visas for skilled
workers.
3. Linkage between poverty alleviation and growth in South African
economy
Throughout the hearings a recurring theme was how South Africa
can break free of the relatively constrained growth
experienced now, and anticipated in the medium term, and
achieve the needed growth rates of near 6%, as anticipated by
GEAR. The discussion between the Committee and those who
appeared before it is summarised hereunder.
GEAR has successfully achieved stability in terms of macro-
economic fundamentals. However, the South African economy has
undergone a fundamental structural transformation in recent
decades in terms of sectoral change, labour skills profile and
production technology. The consequence of this transformation
is the rise in importance of the tertiary sector, which Dr
Abedian argues now generates 65% of the national income. This
shift has created a structural reduction in demand for
unskilled labour, and increased demand for skilled labour.
Given this profile, it is likely that poverty and inequality
will increase through rising levels of structural
unemployment, even within the context of ongoing aggregate
growth. Major investment in skills training and employment
generation are now the key policy challenges required to
capitalise on the achievements of GEAR.
The labour force is not adequately skilled to meet the
changing demands of the transformed economy. There is an
urgent need for investment in effective training and education
in order to ensure that the labour force can provide the
economy with the skills it requires, and also to enable the
workforce to participate in the economy. Pending the
development of a skilled workforce it will be necessary to
recruit skilled labour from overseas.
There is also a need to create employment for those suffering
from structural unemployment in order to prevent the growth of
inequality between those participating in the economy and
those excluded. One contribution to this objective will be the
large-scale public funded infrastructural projects proposed in
the Budget. However, the capacity of provincial governments to
implement the projects will be a major consideration in terms
of the effectiveness of this strategy for reducing
unemployment. Increases in infrastructural spending are,
nevertheless, a necessary rather than sufficient condition for
addressing poverty and inequality, and an integrated medium-
term poverty reduction programme is required in response to
the profound challenges of growing inequality.
Socio-economic factors related to poverty and inequality have
a negative impact on investor confidence and inhibit prospects
for future growth. Concerns regarding the business risk
associated with investing in an economically polarised society
(as manifested in terms of crime rates, political stability,
etc) combined with concerns regarding the low skills base of
the labour force limit both domestic and foreign investment.
Uncertainty regarding the government's future investment
strategy, following the attainment of the main GEAR targets,
and concerns about future policy on the redistribution of
capital investments and assets, are compounding low investor
confidence.
There are also some concerns that affect South Africa's growth
from an international perspective. The Minister, in his Budget
Speech, alluded to the inequitable trade practices of the
developed world in relation to developing countries. These
include the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union
and other countries' similar protectionist measures. Other
concerns are the perception of South Africa, and Africa as a
whole, in the world community. Political, social and economic
troubles in our region have ramifications that affect economic
growth and stability throughout our continent. This
contributes to the perception amongst many foreign investors
that the risk of doing business in South Africa is not
outweighed by its potential returns. Restoring investor
confidence needs to be a national priority.
Decisive leadership is now required to address these issues,
from both the government and the business sector. In order to
consolidate the gains of macro-economic stability, it is
critical to develop mechanisms to promote trust between the
government, labour and business, and to develop a new
framework for co-operation based around the creation of new
jobs, rather than the preservation of old ones.
It is also critical to develop the capacity of local
government to generate an environment conducive to economic
growth and employment through infrastructural investment in
order to address the issue of structural unemployment that is
arising from the transformation of the national economy.
In order to capitalise on the achievements of macro-economic
stabilisation, both domestic and international confidence are
now critical to promote increased investment. This can only be
achieved by addressing the socio-economic issues outlined
above.
4. Poverty alleviation
Poverty alleviation has received a significant amount of
attention in the 2001-02 Budget. It is specifically targeted
with certain expenditures and tax reductions. It also is
indirectly addressed through overall efforts to grow the
economy and create new jobs, as outlined in the previous
section. Significant additional spending is going to be made
available to directly attack poverty in South Africa, and this
will be coupled with over R8 billion in tax relief directly to
the low- and middle-income taxpayers.
While many suggestions on how to improve service delivery to
the poor came from independent submissions or the NGO
community, the business community also expressed a concern
over increasing income disparity and the negative effect this
has on investor confidence, and hence investment prospects.
(1) Increased social services expenditures
The National Treasury has made R16 billion available to
provinces to enhance social service delivery. R1,5
billion per year over the medium term will be spent on
specific allocations under the poverty relief and jobs
summit allocations, and over R400 million will be spent
on fighting AIDS this coming year.
(2) Increase of social grants
Old-age and disability grants are to be raised by R30 to
R570 per month and child support grants will grow by 10%
to R110. Idasa commented that an additional R10 per month
would be needed for the old age grants and disability
grants to outstrip inflation. Also, concerns were
expressed that these grants are not yet permanently
inflation-linked. The Treasury is waiting to see what the
total uptake on the grants will be (especially the child
support grant) before committing themselves to increases.
In the meantime, the MTEF allows for inflation-related
adjustments to these grants over the medium term.
Beyond these programmes, Idasa commented that other
direct government spending to help the poor include the
integrated nutrition programme, short-term relief
measures, funds for low-cost housing and the
subsidisation of public transport, and the financing of
local government and pricing of basic services in order
to provide minicipal services to poor households free of
charge.
In addition to this direct spending on poverty
alleviation, it is important to examine the entire
context of the Budget with a view to how government
intends to help the poor. Concentrating on economic
growth and job creation, largely emphasised in the
previous section, along with skills development and
education, will lead to the greatest benefits for the
poor.
(3) Tax cuts to help low and middle income earners
By far, the largest part of the tax cuts are R8,3 billion
in cuts for those earning below R80 000. Also, no taxes
are paid by those earning under R23 000 per year. These
cuts were welcome by all who commented on them. There are
concerns that the unemployed and those employed in the
informal sector would not benefit.
Zero VAT on illuminating paraffin will return R400
million to the pockets of the very poor, who rely on
paraffin for heating, cooking and light. This was also
widely welcomed, with the caveat that the benefits are
passed on to consumers. Even the Treasury expressed
concern that the retailers of paraffin may not pass on
this reduction. This concern was mirrored by several
organisations, the consensus being that consumers must be
aware of their rights and report unscrupulous retailers
who do not lower prices or defy the law by charging a VAT
that no longer exists.
Finally, the fuel levies will rise below the rate of
inflation this year, helping to slow the increase in
transport costs.
(4) Job creation
Job creation measures are more specifically addressed in
the section on economic growth and job creation. One
problem that the BBC highlighted, was the importance of
the informal sector in absorbing labour excluded from the
formal economy. Data regarding this sector is currently
inadequate and research is needed to better understand
the role of informal employment, and enable policy
development to promote employment in this sector.
(5) Improving delivery of poverty alleviation programmes
A consistent complaint to the Committee was that it seems
that poverty is being addressed in piecemeal fashion, and
not with a systematic unified approach. The BBC,
BusinessMap, Dr Stephen Gelb and Dr Abedian all argued
for a more comprehensive approach to micro-economic
policy to address poverty alleviation. BusinessMap was
critical of separate funds being set up to address
poverty alleviation, rather than it being integrated into
a national strategy. Dr Abedian proposed a 10-year
integrated national poverty alleviation programme to
address both medium-term and structural aspects of
poverty alleviation. Idasa outlined a range of possible
policy instruments, including strengthening the
government's delivery capacity and a review of social
grants, adult literacy and adult education allocations to
enhance short-term poverty relief.
4. Revenue reform
Most of the tax relief measures have been discussed under the
sections on economic growth and job creation and poverty
alleviation, but there are other tax measures, mainly new
policies, increases, or the desire for more reform, that
elicited significant commentary from those who gave evidence
before the Committee. The Treasury has commented that one of
their objectives is to keep total revenue collections below
25% of GDP, and all the adjustments contained within the
Budget maintain that goal. There are also some new taxes
proposed, including a re-examination of the tax on banks,
extending PAYE to directors of private companies, and the
implementation of CGT. There was substantial commentary on
these and other tax issues, which are outlined below.
(1) Some controversy over new taxes
The National Treasury has proposed a review of the tax on
banks. The feeling expressed by it is that banks pay less
than their fair share of tax, thus raising the burden on
other taxpayers. The issue will be examined by the
Treasury, also looking at the response of other
countries, since this is an international phenomenon. The
AHI opposes increasing the tax on banks. They argue that
most banks already pay their fair share, pointing out
that the four big banks pay around 22,8% in tax, while
the amount is not much higher for most large corporations
(with the notable exception of those in the retail
sector). They also claim that banking provides much help
for the economy by assisting local councils and
parastatals, providing financial services for South
Africans, and holding statutory reserves for the Reserve
Bank at no interest.
Extending PAYE to private company directors also elicited
much debate. David Clegg of Ernst & Young was especially
concerned that this would amount to an unfair taxation on
loans from a company. The idea is that director payments
are generally considered advances on end-of-year
remunerations. If company profits are below expectations,
then the directors have to reimburse the difference, so
in such a case this tax would essentially be a tax on a
loan. Mr Du Toit responded to this by suggesting that it
is the company accountant's responsibility to estimate
what are reasonable payments to directors, and thus avoid
such a problem.
The AHI argued that the fuel levy should not be
increased, challenging the Treasury's assertion that it
leads to lower fuel consumption. They argue that this is
untrue when there are no viable mass transit alternatives
in existence, and that it simply has the effect of
diverting a greater proportion of household spending to
transportation.
(2) Need to reassess tax on retirement funds
There was a strong belief amongst many who gave evidence,
and many members, that the current system of taxing
retirement needed some revision. The argument that they
provide a disincentive to save for retirement and
therefore contribute to the low savings rate, was put
forward by Fedusa. Mr Kajie also commented that they
disproportionately hit the poor. The Committee reminded
the Treasury that there was a previous promise to re-
examine them, and the Director-General of Finance agreed
to such a re-examination within two years.
(3) Other concerns over taxes
A strong plea was made by Mr Du Toit to refrain from any
new taxes in the short term, largely to give SARS and the
private sector time to adjust to all the recent changes.
Some put forward suggestions of a review of allowances
and thresholds, especially the highest marginal PIT
rates. One argument presented for cutting the rate from
42% was to help reduce the opportunity for arbitrage
between the highest corporate rates. Another argument was
that the highest marginal rate is not in line with
international norms, as the Treasury argues. The AHI
points out that it starts at R215 000, whereas if it were
in line with international norms it would begin at R1
million.
(4) SARS doing good job on administration
There was a universal belief that SARS has been doing an
outstanding job in tax collection and in adapting to the
rapidly changing tax situation. The Treasury acknowledged
this, and also pledged an additional expenditure for SARS
to improve administration and prepare for significant
changes in collection.
One suggestion that many from business and tax experts
wanted to see implemented, was for SARS to begin the
practice of issuing advance written tax rulings.
D. Oral submissions
The following people made oral submissions before the Committee,
some in their personal capacity, and these submissionsare
available on request from the Committee Section of Parliament:
Mr D Clegg, Ernst & Young Associates.
Mr H Kajie, Godobo Chartered Accountants.
Mr P du Toit, formerly of the Katz Commission.
Dr I Abedian, Standard Bank.
Dr S Gelb, Development Bank.
Ms J Cargill, BusinessMap.
Ms K Hesse, BusinessMap.
Mr D Kruger, Sacob.
Mr D Dykes, Sacob.
Mr K Warren, Sacob.
Mr Y Waja, Black Business Council.
Prof F Ahwireng-Obeng, Black Business Council.
Mr L Mondi, Black Business Council.
Mr W Boonzaier, AHI.
Mr R Gouws, AHI.
Mr D Roodt, AHI.
Mr P Haasbroek, AHI.
Mr J Laubscher, AHI.
Mr R Wildeman, Idasa.
Ms M Sadan, Idasa.
Ms J Streak, Idasa.
Ms A Folsher, Idasa.
Ms G Humphries, Fedusa.
Mr P Motlhomme, Nactu.