National Assembly - 07 June 2001
THURSDAY, 7 JUNE 2001 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:01.
The Deputy 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
Nksz M N BUTHELEZI: Somlomo, nginikeza isaziso sokuthi ngosuku olulandelayo lokuhlala kwale Ndlu ngizophakamisa egameni likaKhongolose:
Ukuthi le Ndlu -
(1) ihalalisele iNyuvesi yakwaZulu ngokuqopha umlando eNingizimu Afrika ngokuthi ihloniphe ngeziqu omunye wabaholi abangasekho; (2) ibongela inkosi u-Albert Luthuli owayenguMongameli we-ANC nowaba ngowokuqala ukuthola i-Nobel Peace Prize e-Afrika, nozobe ethweswa iziqu zobuDokotela ngoMgqibelo esiya kuwo (9/06/01) ehholo eliseThekwini; nokuthi
(3) iphonse inselele kuzo zonke izikhungo zemfundo ephakeme ukuthi zilandele lezi zigi namagalelo abuyisa ubuntu, ukusimama nesizotha se- Afrika.
[Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu notice of motion follows.)
[Miss M N BUTHELEZI: Madam Speaker, I 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 University of Zululand on breaking the record in South Africa by honouring one of the late leaders;
(2) congratulates inkosi Albert Luthuli, who was the president of the ANC and the first person in Africa to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and who will be receiving an honorary doctorate on Saturday, 9 June 2001, in the Durban City Hall; and
(3) challenges other tertiary institutions to follow in these footsteps in bringing back the ubuntu, stability and humility of Africa.
[Applause.]]
Mr E K MOORCROFT: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House, mindful of the importance of the Earth Summit to be held in Johannesburg in 2002 -
(1) recognises that the eyes of the world will be focused on South Africa at this time;
(2) notes with alarm persistent media reports that the available funding for this massive operation currently falls far short of what is required to make the summit a success, viz that of an estimated R400 million which will be needed, only some R100 million has been committed to date; and (3) therefore urges the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to dispel these rumours and to take all necessary steps to ensure that the Earth Summit is a success and brings credit to South Africa.
Prince N E ZULU: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Almighty has allowed his nature to play to the benefit of His people in that the KwaZulu-Natal Sharks Board has witnessed another annual sardine migration from the mouth of the Umtamvuna River and over a stretch of land to Port Edward;
(2) appreciates the fact that the said Sharks Board is alerting the public about the sardine run so that even the needy can feed their families in this season; and
(3) calls upon all and sundry to safeguard nature for sustainable development so that such a marine heritage does not deplete.
Mr R J B MOHLALA: 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 the Public Protector, Mr Selby Baqwa, has asked Parliament for protection against improper and unwarranted attacks made against him and his office by Members of Parliament, particularly those from the PAC;
(2) further notes that the Office of the Public Protector is a constitutional structure that reports to Parliament and that unwarranted attacks by MPs constitute a breach of parliamentary Rules;
(3) believes that these attacks are not only aimed at undermining the credibility of these section 9 structures, but are also a deliberate and wilful assault on our democracy; and
(4) therefore urges the Public Protector to consider making a formal complaint to Parliament so that appropriate action can be taken against MPs responsible for this irresponsible behaviour.
[Applause.]
Dr S J GOUS: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis kennis neem dat -
(1) die uitwerking van MIV/Vigs op die Departement van Onderwys reeds teen 2006 rampspoedige gevolge kan hê vir beide leerlinge en onderwysers;
(2) volgens verslae die getal leerlinge per onderwyser van 34 tot 50 kan vermeerder in die jaar 2006 en ‘n geraamde 300 000 leerlinge binne die volgende 10 jaar weens MIV/Vigs kan sterf;
(3) die DA steeds glo dat voldoende onderrig oor MIV/Vigs die beste manier is om die Vigs pandemie aan te pak en verder kennis neem dat die Wes-Kaapse onderwysdepartement die voortou geneem het om programme in skole te implementeer wat leerlinge en onderwysers inlig oor die MIV/Vigs pandemie; en
(4) die verantwoordelikheid by die Departement van Onderwys lê om dié kritieke uitdagings aan te pak en seker te maak dat onderwys nie deur MIV/Vigs lamgelê word nie. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Dr S J GOUS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the new NP:
That the House notes that -
(1) the impact of HIV/Aids on the Department of Education could by 2006 already have disastrous consequences for both pupils and teachers;
(2) according to reports the number of pupils per teacher could increase from 34 to 50 by the year 2006 and within the next 10 years an estimated 300 000 pupils could die from HIV/Aids;
(3) the DA still believes that sufficient education about HIV/Aids is the best way to tackle this pandemic and further notes that the Western Cape’s education department has taken the lead in implementing programmes at schools which inform pupils and teachers about the HIV/Aids pandemic; and
(4) the Department of Education has the responsibility to address these critical challenges and ensure that education is not paralysed by HIV/Aids.]
Prof L M MBADI: 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) expresses its concern at the threat posed by HIV/Aids to education and the predicted increase by 2006 to 50 pupils per teacher;
(2) acknowledges that other HIV/Aids-related factors are illness and death, an increase in orphans and a lack of hope, thereby perpetuating dropout rates;
(3) notes that poverty, psychological and psychiatric trauma as well as treatment costs exacerbate this gloomy forecast; and
(4) calls on the Minister of Education to urgently put contingency plans into action to adequately deal with this threat that has both social and economic implications.
Mr M M MASALA: 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 the Minister of Safety and Security, Steve Tshwete, and the Minister of Defence, Mosiuoa Lekota, visited Manenberg yesterday;
(2) further notes that the Ministers announced plans to tackle the problem of gangsterism in Manenberg, Mitchells Plain and Khayelitsha;
(3) believes that the elaborate plans announced by the Ministers reflect a commitment by the ANC Government to provide safety and security to all communities; and (4) welcomes these plans and calls on communities to work with the police to bring criminals to book.
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 Department of Justice yesterday opened six new high
courts and judges chambers at the Cape High Court to provide
urgently required facilities; and
(b) that this new Civil Annex will hear civil matters and, in so
doing, will free the main court for criminal hearings; and
(2) trusts that the Civil Annex will not only serve to clear the backlog of both civil and criminal matters, but will also provide a more conducive working environment for hard-pressed Cape High Court judges.
[Applause.]
Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the FA:
That the House -
(1) expresses concern at the rioting by residents of Ikhutseng in the Northern Cape over the lack of service delivery by the ANC local and provincial governments;
(2) notes that the community’s concerns include a lack of doctors and sanitation facilities, poor road infrastructure and problems at schools; and
(3) calls on the premier of the Northern Cape and the mayor of the Diamantveld Rural Council to address the concerns of their voters and to take steps to restore peace in this area.
Ms C M P RAMOTSAMAI: 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 leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in
Zimbabwe, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, publicly endorsed President
Thabo Mbeki's handling of the Zimbabwean crisis; and
(b) he has characterised the bilaterals between the ANC and the MDC
as positive;
(2) believes that the recent public statement by the leader of the MDC in Zimbabwe confirmed our long-held view that constructive engagement with the government of Zimbabwe is the correct strategic approach to prevent catastrophe;
(3) welcomes the statement by Mr Morgan Tsvangirai; and
(4) calls on the DA to desist from unfounded and misdirected criticism of the Government’s approach to the situation in Zimbabwe.
[Applause.] Mrs G M BORMAN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) that the crime rate in Cape Town's CBD has dropped by 46% since
the implementation of the City Improvement District; and
(b) that the Unicity is currently training more than 500 community
police officers, and is planning to spend R8 million on
expanding the city's closed circuit television camera system;
(2) therefore congratulates the DA-run city of Cape Town on this initiative and encourages the city in its plans to expand the CID concept to other areas of Cape Town; and
(3) calls on the ANC to follow the example of the DA in Cape Town to make life safer for all the people of South Africa.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, may I just appeal that we be given an opportunity to hear the Notices of Motion without too much comment and noise. [Applause.]
Prof L B G NDABANDABA: 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) applauds the Pretoria Technikon Council for taking a bold step by appointing its first black Vice Chancellor, Prof Langalibalele Ngcobo;
(2) notes that his appointment, confirmed by the Technikon Council last week, is a matter of great pride to all of us; and
(3) congratulates the Technikon Council for the realisation of the transformation process, which it has embarked upon.
[Applause.] Mrs T J TSHIVHASE: 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 DA MPs decided to visit disgraced former Welfare Minister Abe Williams in prison;
(2) further notes that the DA have loudly, harshly and repeatedly attacked the ANC for visiting freedom fighter Allan Boesak in prison;
(3) believes that this is further evidence of the selective morality of the DA and its commitment to stoop to whatever level to demonise the ANC; and
(4) calls on the DA to reconsider its policy of loud, empty shouting about everything the ANC does, instead of debating issues on their merit.
[Applause.]
Mr J DURAND: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes that as an aftermath of the Tony Yengeni 4x4 fiasco, Daimler Chrysler has decided to repossess 19 of the 32 Mercedes Benz motor vehicles made available to VIPs, including those with ANC connections;
(2) agrees with Lulama Chakela, Daimler Chrysler’s spokesperson, that their involvement in the arms deal and the entire issue of cars for VIPs has caused irreparable harm to Daimler Chrysler’s good name and reputation; and
(3) once again calls on all Members of Parliament to declare all assets accruing from the arms deal or otherwise, because it also affects the name and reputation of all Members of Parliament.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr M E MABETA: 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) expresses its disgust at the escalating theft of funds meant for child maintenance grants at magistrates’ courts countrywide, and welcomes the conviction of two maintenance officers;
(2) expresses its concern, however, about the light sentences handed down, in the light of the widespread poverty and emotional trauma that children endure;
(3) notes that this theft deprives many children of their sole source of support, which is their constitutionally protected right; and
(4) calls on the Minister of Social Development and the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to urgently attend to this horrific situation, which is causing many South African children to suffer unnecessarily on a daily basis.
Mr L M KGWELE: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die ANC sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) kennis neem dat ‘n vergadering, bygewoon deur ANC-lede van hierdie Huis, verteenwoordigers van die Boerevereniging, die Adjunkminister vir Landbou en Grondsake en die LUR vir Veiligheid in die Noordwes, op Vrydag, 1 Junie in Brits gehou is;
(2) verder kennis neem dat die vergadering ‘n reuse sukses was en ‘n positiewe grondslag gelê het vir konstruktiewe toekomstige betrokkenheid ten opsigte van die uitdagings wat die boeregemeenskap in die gesig staar;
(3) boere in die Brits-gemeenskap gelukwens met hulle verbintenis tot samewerking met die Regering, plaaslike regering en openbare verteenwoordigers om oplossings vir hul probleme te vind;
(4) die afbrekende kritiek van sekere elemente ten opsigte van die opbouende dinge wat bereik is en hul verdraaiing veroordeel; en
(5) ‘n beroep op boere en plaaswerkers doen om die transformasieproses van die landbou te ondersteun en om voort te bou op wat reeds bereik is, soos voorgestel en uiteengesit deur die Minister van Arbeid, die Landbou-unie en die georganiseerde Plaaswerkersunie. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mnr L M KGWELE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that a meeting, attended by ANC members of this House, representatives of the Farmers’ Association, the Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs and the MEC for Safety in the North West, took place on Friday, 1 June in Brits;
(2) further notes that the meeting was a great success and laid a positive foundation for constructive future involvement with regard to the challenges facing the farming community;
(3) congratulates farmers in the Brits area on their commitment to co- operating with the Government, local government and public representatives to find solutions to their problems;
(4) condemns the negative criticism by certain elements with regard to the constructive things achieved, and their distortion thereof; and
(5) appeals to farmers and farmworkers to support agriculture’s transformation process and to build on what has already been achieved, as proposed and explained by the Minister of Labour, the Agricultural Union and the organised Farmworkers’ Union.]
MURDERS IN KWAZULU-NATAL
(Draft Resolution)
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes the recent murder of five people in Chatsworth, KwaZulu-Natal;
(2) expresses shock and concern at these murders; and
(3) extends its condolences to the family of the five murdered victims.
Agreed to.
SUPPORT FOR AND APPRECIATION OF ROLE OF SPEAKER
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows:
That the House -
(1) noting -
(a) a letter widely circulated outside this House and authored by B
H Holomisa, MP, on behalf of and in his capacity as leader of
the United Democratic Movement;
(b) the unsubstantiated allegations contained in the letter and the
media, concerning the conduct of the Speaker;
(c) that this is the first ever Parliament in a democratic
dispensation and the first ever South African Speaker
functioning in a democratic and multiparty representative House,
guided by an internationally admired and challenging
constitutional framework;
(d) that, as we are a new democratic order, it can be expected that
our new democratic institution will be faced with new and
complex procedural and constitutional issues; and
(e) that it is internationally regarded as good practice and
convention that in the event of a member wishing to criticise a
Presiding Officer, this should be done through a substantive
motion tabled in the House and not through an attack on the
Presiding Officer outside the House; and
(2) believing that the Speaker -
(a) by virtue of the office she occupies, must play a guiding role
in the development of Parliament and the formulation of
appropriate procedures and rules; and
(b) has exercised her role in a manner consistent with the
strengthening of Parliament and all representatives within it,
expresses its support for and appreciation of, the role played by the
Speaker in protecting and promoting the interests of Parliament and in
ensuring the participation of all parties represented in Parliament.
Dr Z P JORDAN: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion in the Chief Whip’s name. The issue confronting us today, hon members, requires that we be very sober-minded and level-headed. If today’s debate were to degenerate into an exchange of invective between the governing party and the opposition, that would be a great disservice to our country and to our young democracy.
Speaking in a television debate during the late 1960s, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell drew a distinction between an open mind and an empty mind. To elucidate what he meant, Russell employed the analogy of a juror. No one, he said, suggests that jurors should not hold opinions about crime. No one suggests that jurors should hold no views about the nature of the crime. Nor has there been any suggestion that jurors should be unable to distinguish between serious and trivial offences. We do, however, expect jurors, whatever opinions they hold, to try each case they hear with an open mind. That is, we expect them to judge matters after they have heard all sides of the story and we expect them to make up their minds on the basis of the facts.
It is a crucial distinction that should be borne in mind in the course of today’s debate. A great deal has been made in our media about a charge to the effect that Madam Speaker and the other presiding officers are partisan. I want to submit that not a single member of this House can claim to be nonpartisan. In fact, given the manner in which our election system is structured, it would be impossible for a nonpartisan person to win a seat in this House.
We are all here on the strength of party affiliation. Madam Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and all the chairpersons and deputy chairpersons who preside over us at our sittings are members of political parties. In other words, they are all partisan. However, there is a crucial distinction between partisanship and partiality, a distinction akin to the distinction Russell drew about the juror. We accept that our Presiding Officers are partisan. What we expect of them, however, is impartiality. Like the juror who holds opinions about crime, we expect them to judge matters on the basis of the facts before them and not to be swayed by extraneous considerations such as their party affiliations.
The matter at hand requires us to be level-headed precisely because there is a tendency on the part of many to conflate partiality and partisanship. We need to be level-headed as well because the issue we are dealing with is not solely the person of Madam Speaker, the hon Dr Frene Ginwala. What is at issue today is the Office of the Speaker. Let us remember, hon members, that the Office of the Speaker personifies this Parliament. The very title Speaker embodies that relationship. The Speaker is accorded that title because the holder of that Office speaks on behalf of Parliament. An attack on the Speaker is therefore an attack on Parliament as an institution. [Applause.]
I was consequently quite dismayed at the ill-considered manner in which a number of members of the Opposition had chosen to toss their hats into the ring and voice unsubstantiated charges contained in an open letter authored by the hon Bantu Holomisa, the leader of the UDM. One would have expected that considerations such as the dignity of this august Assembly would have persuaded them to proceed with far greater circumspection and caution, bearing in mind the serious damage careless talk can inflict on this institution.
One would also urge our media to weigh a little bit more carefully what they print and say about the Office of the Speaker. No one, and I repeat no one, least of all I, wishes to curtail the freedom of expression. But, any undermining of Parliament, which is after all one of the key institutions of our democracy, cannot be in the public interest. Amazingly, it is the South African media who have been the worst offenders in confusing partisanship and partiality. Let me add that quoting practices of Westminster is of no assistance to us here. What they do in Westminster is the exception and not the rule.
In every democratic parliament I have looked at, other than that of Zambia, the Speaker and other presiding officers are members of political parties. What is more, they remain active in their respective parties while in office. What every democratic legislature requires of its presiding officers is not an empty mind, but an open mind. Democratic parliaments require that the Speaker be impartial, and not nonpartisan. Well, in the United Kingdom, for reasons rooted in that country’s history, they took it further. But when one looks at other democracies - and I will confine my remarks here only to Commonwealth countries, but there are others one can quote - there are a plethora of practices.
During a Conference of Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers in 1996, for example, Mr Alexis Galanos, Speaker of the Cypriot parliament, informed his audience that he was also the vice-president of his party and that his predecessor had been the president of the Socialist Party of Cyprus even while he held the office of Speaker. Another participant in that meeting, Senator Michael Beahan, president of the Australian Senate, informed the conference of how active he was within his party, and that Australians found that unexceptional. Mr Stephen Martin, Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, proudly proclaimed at that conference that not only did he participate in his party’s caucus, he has also responded to queries about such activities by saying that he was elected by a constituency within Australian society, and he was going to represent them to the best of his ability but he hoped that did not impair his capacity to be impartial when presiding over sittings of the House.
There are yet other instances among Commonwealth parliaments where the Speaker, as a member of a political party, actually votes with his or her party when a division is called. There are yet others where the Speaker exercises a casting vote in the instance of a tie. The honourable Betty Boothroyd, then Speaker at Westminister, revealed that she had occasion to use her casting vote when there was a tie in the House of Commons. So, those who are so eager that we emulate the UK example would do well to contemplate that.
Impartiality does not imply that the Speaker should play a passive role. A Speaker is expected to be active. A Speaker is expected to interpret the Constitution. A Speaker is expected to exercise her discretion. A Speaker is expected to make judgment calls. Those judgment calls might be good, bad or indifferent. But no one can fault a Speaker for exercising that discretion. It was in the exercise of that discretion that Madam Speaker referred the Auditor-General’s report to the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament. It was Madam Speaker who directed Scopa to examine that report. But it was equally her duty to offer guidance to the committee and its chairperson regarding the limits of its powers.
In demanding that the Speaker be impartial, we do not require her to be a neuter, what Bertrand Russell would have called an empty mind. Of course, that means there will be occasions when the opinions expressed and actions taken by the Speaker might invite the displeasure of hon members. There have been a number of occasions when this side of the House has been angered by the Speaker’s actions. And I am certain there have been other occasions when she has displeased the opposition benches as well. But, perhaps that is itself a measure of our Speaker’s impartiality. I defy any member of this House to cite an instance of partiality on the part of Madam Speaker. I defy any member of this House to cite a single instance of dereliction of duty.
Because parliaments set such great store by the dignity of the Office of the Speaker, it is customary that hon members do not publicly criticise or dissent from the decisions of the Speaker. Should a member or a group of members feel aggrieved, they are usually required to express their criticism by way of a substantive motion. Perhaps this Parliament should require members of this Chamber to act in a like manner. In New Zealand, for example, even the suggestion that the Speaker has been partial is considered a breach of parliamentary privilege, and an MP who did that would be subjected to disciplinary action. Media organisations that glibly echoed such sentiments would be charged with contempt of parliament.
Hon members, what is at stake in today’s debate is not merely the integrity and dignity of one person. I consider the unsubstantiated, reckless accusations made against our Speaker as an attack on the dignity and the integrity of this Parliament. And I am certain that after listening to the debate, hon members will agree that it is not Dr Ginwala, but the hon Bantu Holomisa and the party he leads who deserve to be in the dock. But I trust that the leader of the UDM will have the moral courage, after he has heard the views expressed in today’s debate, to retract his unfounded allegations and apologise to Madam Speaker and to the House. [Applause.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, it is not a pleasure to participate in this debate. I regard it as a sad day for Parliament.
The Democratic Alliance believes that the Speaker has mishandled the allegations by Gen Holomisa. Made outside of Parliament, they should have stayed outside. We understand that she is contemplating legal action against him. The mistake was importing the affair and turning it into a parliamentary crisis. Sometimes it is wiser not to act too precipitately. If the Speaker had sought advice before she acted, we would certainly have suggested a different approach.
Be that as it may, the crisis surrounding the Speakership is a fact. The Speaker herself stated that no self-respecting parliament could tolerate a Speaker who abused her powers in the way alleged. She said that she did not want a motion of confidence. She did not need an ANC majority. She preferred an all-party committee to investigate the allegations and make a finding. It is clear that the ANC decided to demonstrate to the Speaker that she does not have an independent power base in Parliament or among the minorities. They want to show her that she is beholden to the ANC. These are the tactics of the hon Tony Yengeni, who himself is in contempt of a parliamentary committee.
A motion of confidence is an entirely inappropriate way of dealing with this crisis. The tyranny of the majority does not turn vice into virtue. Should we do away with murder trials and have the citizens voting to decide the guilt of the murderer? None of the allegations will be substantiated. None of them will be refuted. This debate leads merely to a stating of positions without any enquiry, without a meeting of minds and without any solutions. The outcome will be an enforcement of the will of the majority. How are people in South Africa going to decide whether the Speaker did or did not exceed her authority? How can they decide whether she abused her power? How can they decide whether she deserves criticism? And that is the problem which this debate fails to resolve.
Speaker Ginwala has made a great contribution to the establishment of democratic parliamentary traditions in our country. Precedents and decisions which she has made will live on long after she has left. No one can take that away from her. She has created a democratic tradition of being prepared to listen to the voice of minority parties and insisting that all minority parties have the right to be heard. I want to say that this is no mean achievement. But it does not mean that the Speaker is above criticism.
I regret to state that there have been a number of occasions, and many more recently, when the duality of roles of the Speaker has led to very unfortunate consequences. It is a fact that she is one of the 10 most important and senior people in the ANC. When there has been a clash between her role as a politician and her role as a Speaker, Frene Ginwala the politician has sometimes won.
This has led to some shocking incidents which have weakened Parliament instead of strengthening it. One example is the Patricia de Lille case. Mrs De Lille accused some members of being spies. She properly withdrew her remarks, but the Speaker allowed what amounted to a kangaroo court to convict Mrs De Lille and impose an unconstitutional sentence. It did not need a constitutional lawyer to work out that the sentence was wrong and unjust. But the Speaker pursued the matter through the Cape High Court and the Appeal Court, knowing full well that the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act was flawed and unenforceable.
Despite the elapse of years, that Act has still not been amended. The Speaker has indicated that she would like something to happen. She kept on pointing fingers at Whips and party leaders and said we must take the initiative. With due respect, it cannot be up to other people to take an initiative which properly belongs to the Speaker. She has dragged her feet, and the result is that one can take no action, almost, against a recalcitrant member of Parliament. What about the Maduna affair? It ended up bringing Parliament into disrepute, and Madam Speaker did nothing to prevent that. The ANC and Minister Maduna got away with something which should not have been permitted. It was not in the ANC’s political interests for any action to be taken and the Speaker allowed that.
Then, what about the arms deal saga? This has not been a credit to Parliament or to the ANC. There is a suspicion right around the country that it has been poorly and ineptly handled by the executive - and controversially by the Speaker - and the reason is that substantial donations were made to the ANC election fund by many of those who have benefited from the arms deal. [Interjections.]
Government, throughout, has been disappointing and suspicious in the extreme. The Speaker’s forays and her fights with the Chairperson of Scopa have blemished her reputation and image. At the very least, her good judgment has been called into question and she has, on some occasions, seemed to bend over backwards to assist the executive instead of calling the executive to account.
What about the Yengeni affair? It created a bad impression throughout South Africa. As he drives around in his 4x4 he must reflect whether he has damaged or strengthened Parliament. [Interjections.] In this, he was aided and abetted by the ANC majority, and the Speaker allowed it to happen before her very eyes.
A long and distinguished Speakership has been marred, but much of the damage could be repaired if we ignore the motion which the hon Dr Jordan moved on behalf of the Chief Whip, and accept an amendment which I hereby move. The main part of it reads as follows:
That the House, noting that -
(1) serious allegations have been made against the Speaker which must be substantiated or refuted;
(2) the Speaker herself is on record as saying that she favoured an all- party committee without an ANC majority; and
(3) the outcome of a debate on a confidence motion would be determined by the ANC, irrespective of the arguments and allegations advanced by the other parties, and would weaken Parliament and the Office of the Speaker instead of strengthening them,
therefore resolves to appoint an all-party committee to investigate the allegations and the appropriateness of the existing relationship between the Speaker, the majority party and the executive, this committee to report thereon to the House on or before 29 June 2001.
[Interjections.] I told the Speaker some weeks ago that my party cares about Parliament and the Office of the Speaker, and it cares about parliamentary democracy. I have a particular regard and respect for the Speaker herself, and we regard it as vital that the office which she holds should emerge strengthened and not weakened.
I want to make an appeal to the ANC, today, and I want to ask them to think again and do the sensible and honourable thing. They should accede to the Speaker’s own request and let us determine whether the allegations are substantiated or refuted. They should help us to strengthen Parliament which is not the plaything of the people who sit here.
This is the people’s Parliament. If we weaken and destroy it, we destroy something that many who sit here and many outside sweated and sacrificed to establish. [Interjections.] One can be dismissive and one can be derisive about it. But, the people expect us not to play partisan games here. What I want to see and what my side of the House wants to see is the strengthening of the people’s Parliament in the interests of all in South Africa. [Interjections.]
I want to ask whether the ANC is big enough to lay aside its own political considerations and its political interests, for once, and put those of the people of South Africa first. [Applause.]
Mr A C NEL: Madam Speaker, during his input, Mr Gibson accused the Chief Whip of the Majority Party of being in contempt of Parliament. [Interjections.] I ask for your ruling. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Gibson, if you said that the hon member was in contempt of Parliament, then that is unparliamentary.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I said that he was in contempt of a parliamentary committee. [Interjections.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, that is unparliamentary. [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, we will still have that debate. I withdraw the statement. [Interjections.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, we, in the IFP, have looked at the facts surrounding the controversy under discussion, and also the legal position. We have come to a certain conclusion which we believe is the right one.
However, before dealing with our conclusion, I wish to state that the IFP regrets the fact that Parliament has today, inter alia, to debate the actions of Madam Speaker. We would rather have preferred that this cup be removed form us. We believe that the matter is fundamental to our democracy and although it was originally an institutional issue, it has now, unfortunately, been turned into a political matter.
We have, for the past seven years, enjoyed a good relationship with the hon Dr Frene Ginwala, both in her personal capacity and as the incumbent of the Office of Speaker. Therefore, the matter, to us, is not a personal one.
What is of much concern to us is that this debate may further damage the dignity of the institution of Parliament and the Office of Speaker. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of trying to score party-political points at the expense of the Office of Speaker and the institution of Parliament.
When the first ominous signs of trouble around the so-called arms scandal appeared, the IFP made its position clear, and it is still its position today, namely, that we will not become part of a cover-up and a witch-hunt. We are interested in the truth. The IFP had a look at the facts surrounding the issues in the controversy. We also studied the legal position. The main actors in the controversy are the chairperson of a parliamentary portfolio committee, the leader of the UDM and the Speaker. We do not propose to comment on the Holomisa issue. Our looking at what we perceive as the facts shows that Madam Speaker became involved in the functional affairs of a parliamentary portfolio committee by, inter alia, calling in the chairperson, and questioning him about the committee’s functional work.
Because of the Speaker’s involvement in the functional work of the committee the chairperson accused her, not only of several factual inaccuracies but also of what he called: Madam Speaker taking the lead in unjustifiably challenging the committee’s work, imposing her will in ways which have weakened the committee in its arms deal related work, and Madam Speaker’s actions leading to very damaging conflict within the committee.
It is clear that the chairperson of that committee sees Madam Speaker’s involvement as interference which hampered the oversight function and accountability of his committee. The IFP does not differ from the stand by the chairperson. This appears to be the origin of the controversy. This lies at the root of the controversy and not the Holomisa or the Tony Leon interventions.
Furthermore, the controversy is clouded because the involvement of Madam Speaker happened at a time when the Government was under heavy fire because of the arms scandal, and when the said portfolio committee was conducting serious investigations into the arms scandal.
Regarding the legal position, what can the Speaker do and what can she not do? What are the role and powers of the Speaker? Therefore, was Madam Speaker entitled to become involved in the functional affairs of the said portfolio committee, as she did? We have looked at the Constitution, the Acts of Parliament, the Rules of Parliament and the common law of Parliament, which is the established parliamentary customs and usages as expressed in what I call conventions and precedents. We have to bear in mind that what may today appear as an innocent act or step may tomorrow become a parliamentary precedent if not challenged. This is one reason why we looked seriously at the present controversy, careful to avoid bad precedents which may, one day, become binding on all of us.
In some other parliaments speakers are expected to be politically passive. They do not participate in the political activities of their own party. They socialise with all parties and build a position of trust with all parties. Our Speaker and some Speakers of our provincial legislatures are political activists. They participate in the activities of their political parties and are holding office as Speaker.
There is of course nothing in the law that prohibits that. We heard Dr Jordan and also Mr Gibson referring to this position and we are of the opinion that Parliament should take a careful look at this situation and try to arrive at a position which is typically South African and which will clear the Office of Speaker of uncertainty in this respect. Therefore, we propose the establishment of a committee to look into these and similar matters so as to remove doubt about the powers and privileges of the Speaker.
In examining the legal position we also looked at the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in 1998 in the matter of Gauteng Legislature vs Killian and others. The judgment by our highest court dealt with the powers and privileges of the Speaker and held that the Speaker had wide-ranging powers. The judge of appeal referred with approval to the position of the Speaker in the House of Commons as follows:
The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons are as various as they are important, and the Speaker is the interpreter and custodian of the rights and privileges of the members of the House.
With reference to impartiality the judge said:
The Speaker is required by the duties of his office to exercise and to display the impartiality of a judge.
Something like Caesar’s wife, I may add.
Madam Speaker, after we have considered the facts in the controversy and the legal position, the IFP takes the following position: The motion is not relevant to the principles at hand, namely how the Speaker should exercise her powers, nor does it have anything to do with the real issues of the controversy as, for instance, set out in the letters of Dr Gavin Woods, MP.
Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that although the scope of the Speaker is wide, Madam Speaker has, in fact, exceeded the limits of her powers in the Scopa case. We believe she does not have the powers to become involved, as she did, in the functional affairs of the committee and we urge her to refrain from doing so.
For all these reasons we in the IFP have resolved not to participate in the voting and we will accordingly abstain.
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Madam Speaker, the Office of Speaker is a high-risk job. In the UK nine Speakers of Parliament died violent deaths by way of execution or murder. The consolation is that today they have a strong democracy.
Why has the ANC proposed this motion? In doing so the ANC runs the risk of achieving the opposite of what they intended. Instead of protecting the independence of the Speaker they are undermining the independence by proposing a motion of support on behalf of the majority party only. The effect is to bring the Speaker into the political arena, which should never have happened.
If anyone here felt that the Speaker should resign or be replaced that person or party should have brought a motion of no confidence. Nobody in the opposition did so and for the ANC to bring a motion of support is unheard of and unnecessary.
Some of the actions of the Speaker do not allow the DA to support the motion of full confidence in her at this stage. It was wrong for the ANC to approach the issue of the Speaker in this way. We do not want the Speaker to resign but we believe she must rectify her actions so that her even- handedness, her objectivity and neutrality are above all suspicion. The issue is one that should have been resolved by way of wisdom and consensus, not by way of a divisive majority vote.
The DA wishes to say that it does indeed appreciate the role played by Dr Ginwala since 1994. We believe her to be a woman of great character, with much courage and a lot of wisdom. But even the wisest head can only wear so many hats. Filling the role of both Speaker and party politician is not what this Parliament needs. Serving, for instance, on the ANC’s National Working Committee creates an untenable situation for any Speaker.
The DA believes that this debate should not be about the character or the person of Dr Ginwala, but rather about the role of the Speaker, separated from the personality of the incumbent in our democracy. Stripped of all the side issues, the real issue before this House today is actually the kind of Parliament we want to have in our country, unlike some ANC members who have by their party-political actions caused the current discussion about the Speaker to develop into a crisis.
We believe that this debate should have taken place but not under the guise of a political motion of confidence. It is a healthy and appropriate debate to be having as a further step in deepening and maturing our democratic institutions. We must establish a convention in our country about the kind of Speaker that we want.
Broadly speaking, there are two models: There is the American model with a highly politicised activist speaker, where the speaker is almost always controversial and where the speaker is in charge of driving his or her party’s political programme in the House of Representatives. In the British model the Speaker acts as the apolitical voice of parliament. The moment a Speaker is elected as Speaker in terms of that model that person withdraws from all party-political activity. Such a Speaker no longer attends party caucuses, does not participate in political issues and strives at all times to perform his or her duties with the utmost impartiality.
Traditionally, the Speaker was never opposed in a parliamentary election from the side of the opposition because the opposition understood that it had a duty to protect the impartiality of the Speaker as well. Although in name the Speaker was a member of parliament, in reality there was a very disciplined withdrawal from anything that could be interpreted as party political. The Speaker should be the representatives’ representative, acting to protect and acknowledge every member equally, from the President to the low member of Parliament from the smallest opposition party.
In 1992 a Labour Party MP was elected Speaker after the British general election was won by the Conservative Party. She was proposed by a Conservative Party member of parliament and against four strong Conservative Party candidates. This is how nonpartisan the Speaker should be. Simply put, we do not want a Newt Gingrich. We need a Betty Boothroyd.
Our present Speaker played a vital role in establishing parliamentary democracy. We believe that she must play an equally important role in establishing the model of the kind of Speaker we want by way of convention and therefore consensus between all the interests in the House. To empower this impartial stance the DA believes that the role of the Speaker should be defined as strictly apolitical, withdrawing from all party activities upon assumption of that office.
In this way our South Africa Speaker should embody the philosophy expressed in Speaker Lentor’s celebrated reply to the demand of King Charles I for the arrest of five members of parliament on charges of treason when they dared to speak out against the King’s authority. He said:
May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this Place, but as the House is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here.
We believe that the Speaker is central in changing the tone of the debate in this Parliament. The simple question to ask is: Do we want a Parliament that is ridiculed by the people for being petty and irrelevant, or do we want a Parliament which is celebrated and supported for placing the lives of the people first?
Te veel kere die afgelope jaar of twee het die debat in hierdie Parlement niemand, geen party of geen individu, tot eer gestrek nie. Die rondgooi van beledigings en dreigemente, die bal van vuiste, kleinlike en onwaardige optrede, het ons Parlement al merkbare skade aangedoen. Die beste waarborg vir ‘n waardige parlement wat gekenmerk word deur sinvolle debat is ‘n Speaker met ‘n sterk sin vir regverdigheid wat die vermoë het om deur sy of haar optrede ‘n atmosfeer van waardigheid in hierdie Huis te skep wat kenmerkend moet wees van ‘n raadsaal waar die nasie se belangrikste sake bespreek word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Too many times during the past year or two the debates in this Parliament were not to the credit of anyone, any party or individual. The levelling of insults and threats, clenching of fists, petty and undignified behaviour, have caused our Parliament substantial harm. The best guarantee for a dignified Parliament characterised by meaningful debate is a Speaker with a strong sense of fairness who has the ability to create, through his or her conduct, an atmosphere of dignity in this House which should be characteristic of a Chamber in which the most important issues concerning a nation are discussed.]
By formalising the role and responsibility of the Speaker as an apolitical one, we would send a loud and clear message to the people of our country that the interests of democracy are valued more by their Parliament than the narrow interests of party-political struggles.
The DA will not support this motion. Although we have no wish to propose a motion of no confidence in the Speaker, we cannot support a motion of full confidence for two reasons. Firstly, the conduct of Madam Speaker in the Scopa investigation into the arms deal has left much to be desired, and has raised legitimate questions about her balancing of party loyalty with parliamentary responsibilities. With us it created the impression that her conduct in this regard was part of the suspected wide cover-up regarding the arms deal.
Secondly, in too many instances the Speaker is seen not to defend the interests of Parliament against the interests of the executive. She too easily abandons the protection of the rights of members of Parliament vis-à- vis members of the executive, or overly protects members of the executive in this House. The Speaker’s responsibility is to defend the rights of Parliament, not the members of her own party in Cabinet.
In conclusion, the motion by the ANC is a huge disservice to the idea of an impartial Speaker. I can think of nothing else that would have polarised and politicised the Office of the Speaker more. To resolve the outstanding questions, we believe a multiparty committee is the way forward. We believe wisdom and common loyalty to Parliament as an institution representing the interests of the people was and remains the way forward. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Ms F I CHOHAN-KOTA: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I thought I heard the hon Douglas Gibson saying something when he was making his speech, and it has since been confirmed that he, in fact, did say this, that when the hon Speaker took her case to court, she did so knowing that it had no legal basis and that she would lose it.
I want to suggest that this implies that the Speaker acted in bad faith when she spent public money and that this, in fact, infers extreme mala fide in her person. I want to suggest that this is actually unparliamentary. [Interjections.] The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, I will have to look at that to see the context in which those remarks were made, in order to assess the conclusion that you are making. So I would rather not take that issue as a point of order on which to make a ruling at the present moment.
Mr B H HOLOMISA: Madam Speaker, the comparison that the hon MP Pallo Jordan is drawing is, in fact, motivating, acknowledging and also justifying why the hon Speaker acted in a partial manner. If the object of this debate is to establish the confidence of the House in the Speaker, I submit, with humility, that it is misguided. The UDM has not as yet questioned the hon Speaker’s integrity to preside in the House. What we are seeking is clarification on all the matters raised in the letter in question. We are therefore not in a position to vote on this motion as it stands.
However, we submit that Madam Speaker has always articulated a vision of a people-centred Parliament with doors open to the real world beyond. But she is human. By making the legitimate choice that she did, that is to remain an active member of the ANC and its internal structures, such as the national working committee, she created the conditions in which one day the moment would arrive when she would have to withstand intense political pressure from within her own party to exercise judgment in a way that would serve its short-term interests. We believe that that day came shortly before the end of last year, and we believe, moreover, that at that point the Speaker made a misjudgment.
As subsequent disputes and legal opinions have shown, there are a number of reasonable interpretations of the 14th report of Scopa, specifically in relation to what it intended by way of the composition and remit of the joint investigation into the arms procurement package. Hence, it was unreasonable of the Speaker to have offered only one interpretation on 27 December last year an interpretation that was expedient and useful to the executive. As a result, the Heath unit was subsequently excluded from the investigation by the Government against the wishes of this House.
The executive took upon itself the responsibility to appoint the three agencies to carry out the investigation, without even a clear brief and terms of reference, in disregard of the parliamentary process that had preceded their decision, thereby casting a shadow over the important principle of separation of powers of the executive from those of the legislature. In this sense, Madam Speaker put the executive’s needs ahead of those of her own Parliament.
We trust that reports and rumours that Madam Speaker subsequently compounded this error of judgment by attending meetings of the ANC study group on Scopa to advise on a joint strategic approach are unfounded. If she had done so, we believe, she would have overstepped the line between reasonable party activity as a Speaker, and unreasonable party activity, given the delicate nature of the matter with which Scopa was engaged and the importance of the arms procurement investigation to the nation as a whole. Either way, vital constitutional issues have been thrown out. They must be addressed now or they will continue to haunt us in the future.
For Parliament to operate as an institution of independent accountability over the executive requires that members of the ruling party exercise oversight over colleagues of their own caucus, especially those comrades who always shout ``Viva!’’ on Saturday and on Monday change and receive motorcars from companies. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion before us today. I would like to remind many that approximately 46 years ago, our people gathered at the Congress of the People in Kliptown and pledged amongst other things, and I quote:
We, the people of South Africa, declare for all our country and the world to know:
… that our people have been robbed of their birthright to land, liberty and peace by a form of government founded on injustice and inequality; …
And we pledge ourselves to strive together, sparing neither strength nor courage, until the democratic changes here set out have been won.
The people shall govern!
Every man and woman shall have the right to vote for and to stand as a candidate for all bodies which make laws; …
I thought this excerpt was appropriate to serve as a reminder that the majority of members in this House are elected representatives, committed to the Freedom Charter and the constitutional democracy. The Speaker, when elected as Speaker to this democratic institution for the first time in 1994, captured the spirit of the Congress of the People in her acceptance speech, when she reflected on the importance of Parliament as a central institution in constitutional democracy. For her, like many others in this House, this came with a lifetime of political struggle and activism.
She stated the following, and I quote:
… the character of this Assembly must become the voice of the people of South Africa, articulated through their elected representatives.
This House is both the fulfilment and the repository of the values and principles that, at great cost, have driven changes through which our country and its people are passing.
All eyes will be on this Parliament as it meets to address the needs and expectations of all South Africans. May our proceedings here, whatever our political differences, be marked by a spirit of mutual respect for one another and for the institution of a constitutional democracy.
As we gather here in this august House today, we are deeply conscious that we have elected members in this House who appear to reflect a lack of commitment to this democracy and this institution, through allegations and irresponsible actions. They appear not to be concerned about the interests of this institution nor of Parliament and, above all, not about our Constitution.
We see this through interpretations that were made earlier by the hon Douglas, not to mention this open letter that was put out by the hon Holomisa. Allow me to refer, in some detail, to some of the constitutional dimensions of the debate that we are engaged in today.
The liberal media, the intellectual community and opposition parties that assume the liberal mentality, are describing this debate as being about ``the separation of powers’’ in a democracy. The usage is in line with the constitutional preamble that determines that there shall be a separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary, with the appropriate checks and balances to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.
Let me venture to explain the separation of powers principle, being a member of the executive, which consciously operates within this framework. The liberals in our midst persist in interpreting the separation of powers as an absolute divide. In the process, they ignore judgment on this matter, as was already handed down in 1996 by the Constitutional Court when it concluded:
No constitutional scheme can reflect a complete separation of powers. The scheme is always one of partial separation.
Here the Constitutional Court quoted an American case in which a court concluded that areas are partly interlacing, not wholly disjointed. I will come back to this very important judgment. Now, maybe seeing things in the absolute is the luxury of those who continue to be on the side as spectators and never actually have to enter the fray of reality and have to cope with the tensions and trade-offs that real life and decision-making entail.
The Speaker and Government do not have that luxury. We do have to make decisions and make decisions fast, but always trying to strive through to the bigger aim and direction, in our instance, that of achieving and strengthening democracy, with the aim of eradicating the injustices of the apartheid past.
The second general observation, centres on the trend systematically to undermine or attempt to undermine institutions and offices that underpin our democracy, to show dispersion at the slightest provocation and to try to create the impression that our constitutional democracy is under threat. This is very irresponsible politicking and it will not succeed.
To attempt to force constitutional crisis where it does not exist, is tantamount to treasonous behaviour and, in today’s global context, such attempts may have effects on our economy. So, let us be careful that we are not operating in a fishbowl, because many of us operate in that fishbowl and assume it is a large ocean, never mind the global validity.
The institutions of our democracy are still being developed. They have all the potential, the pent-up energy and the desire to grow and flourish, and we must and will nurture, protect and defend their growth. When we engage with matters of our Constitution, it requires much more than a tentative touch in our endeavours to clarify some of the areas that have been left vague in the wording or situations that have not necessarily been foreseen in the drafting.
However, the process of thrashing out the nitty-gritty requires a higher level of responsibility from all of us in this House. The issue is not whether either the ANC or the opposition and the minority parties carry the responsibility. It is a matter of how we, collectively, as the representatives of our people, discharge our responsibility as leaders and show decorum and restraint where this is required.
Now, coming to the relationship between the executive and Parliament, because we have had quantification on this matter, brief as it may have been, there is no single manner in which different countries have been organising the relationship between the legislature and the executive. Although the broad pattern of instituting some separation is apparent in all democracies, the degree thereof differs.
Unfortunately, given the overpowering influence, even in the fishbowl, in instances of material in international languages which we can generally access, that is English and a smattering of Dutch, we tend to think that the models adopted by Britain, the USA and the Netherlands are the only constitutional models that we can considerably draw from. Yes, it is true that in these countries members of the executive do not have a shared claim to being members of the legislature. They either resign from those positions or they have never belonged to the legislature in the first place. However, for example in the German system, this is not the case. Dual roads of belonging to the executive and the legislature are common, and it is equally feasible to draw from such examples.
Now, the paranoia with complete separation comes when we attempt to see our constitutional democratic system as made up of separate parts, instead of seeing the very dynamic relationships between the parts, looking beyond the structures and concentrating on the various checks and balances. Again, as the Constitutional Court said in 1996, when it certified the Constitution:
The separation-of-powers doctrine is not fixed or is not a fixed or rigid constitutional doctrine. It is given expression in many different forms and made subject to checks and balances of many kinds. It can thus not be said that a failure to separate completely the functionaries of the executive and the legislature is destructive of the doctrine.
Indeed, the overlap provides a singularly important check and balance of the exercise of executive power. It makes the executive more directly answerable to the elected legislature. Cabinet members are compelled to provide Parliament with full and regular reports concerning matters under their control and, finally, the legislature has the power to remove the President, and indirectly the Cabinet.
When we drafted the South African Constitution, we consciously opted for a model that would take cognisance of our historical circumstances. We opted for a system that would allow the executive actively to lead, yet keep them answerable and accountable. We designed the legislative process in which the executive provides the impetus for new policy and legislation, but through deliberative process in Parliament, and particularly in the committee system, the legislature shapes and moulds the contents thereof. In the end, it is only the legislature that can pass legislation and formally adopt policy. Obviously, the legislature can also initiate its own legislation separately from the executive and this constitutional right remains.
However, nowhere does the Constitution, which is supreme in this country, dare I remind the House, allow the legislature to give instructions to the executive through any other avenue than passing an Act. In all other circumstances, they recommend. The executive still has the choice and the responsibility, after having weighed up all the information at its disposal and having taken into consideration a broad range of dynamics to make the decisions. Any attempt to have it differently is unconstitutional and the Speaker, justifiably and rightfully so, rules on such matters accordingly. This is exactly how the parliamentary law adviser had advised the Speaker on these matters. I will quote to the House from his advice to remind those who tend to forget easily:
The application of section 55, which gives Parliament certain oversight functions over the executive, is that Parliament calling the executive to account does not entail giving instructions to the executive. Parliament can make recommendations to the executive and it is then for the executive to decide how to react to that. If Parliament wants to give instructions to the executive, their only route is through legislation.
This is how it happened in the case of putting together the investigative team that is to be involved in the arms deal enquiry. The Speaker acted in line with the Rules of this Parliament, with the Constitution that she helped to craft, in line with the advice she was given in terms of the relationship between Parliament and the executive. The hon Jordan spoke to this at length but those who have their written speeches and cannot depart from that, could not relate to what he had raised. [Applause.]
Any Speaker worth his or her salt would have made exactly the same ruling. Even Idasa, in its review on democracy and the arms deal, states:
As the Speaker rightly pointed out on 27 December, for Parliament to instruct the executive, to grant the SIU a proclamation, this would be of a dubious legal and constitutional validity.
To complain of a Speaker paying attention to the fine points of legality, such as member Holomisa is doing, or being unnecessarily legalistic as the hon Gibson suggests, where the law is quite clear, is opportunistic to say the least. Most probably, if I could venture, it is because Gen Holomisa ruled through military force in the short time of his leadership in his bantustan, that he can so easily disregard parliamentary convention and legality. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. [Applause.] Let me pay some specific attention to the oversight role of the legislature. The parliamentary system we have put in place provides for an abundance of mechanisms to fulfil this role and strengthen it. The committee system, where a commensurate parliamentary portfolio committee accompanies every Cabinet portfolio, is a very powerful mechanism. In addition, the question-and-answer sessions in Parliament have been reformed to allow more access for smaller parties, who cannot spread themselves adequately across the various portfolio committees to exercise some democratic oversight. The Constitution also provides for another category of checks and balances, these being the Chapter 9 institutions. In addition, we have created a variety of executive agencies.
I would like to go on to the relationship between the Speaker and Parliament. The independence of the Speaker - Comrade Jordan has gone into that in detail - from political party affiliations and activities seems to preoccupy the thoughts of many. Similar to the points I have made, in terms of the executive-legislature relationship, there is not a single model in terms of the situation of the Speaker, although our liberal colleagues, who only immerse themselves in old, colonial, Anglophone systems would wish us to believe differently.
Journalists such as Barry Streek, with overwhelming enthusiasm, quote the British example, where the Speaker resigns from his or her party on election and, on completion of their term in the Chair, is elevated to the House of Lords. He relies on a statement of two quite questionable authorities to give credence to his suggestion that if we do not follow suit, the system that this House has opted for is of lesser quality and will automatically give rise to problems.
Who are these authorities? They are an expatriate South African who is a member of the British parliament and none other than Louis le Grange, the former Minister of Police, whom many of us would rather like to forget than to be reminded of as a role model. These are the kind of people that are being referred to in the examples. The correct question to ask in terms of the Speaker-Parliament relationship is not whether or not the incumbent belongs to any party represented in the House, but rather whether the execution of duties of the Speaker or Chairperson has been done appropriately. Let us remember that it is not the Speaker who is on trial here today.
Let us ensure that if there is anyone who wishes to cast aspersions on the Speaker in terms of the manner in which she has carried out her responsibility as Speaker, and if they want to use or abuse their rights as members of Parliament to do so, it should be done in terms of the entire spectrum of the Speaker’s decisions and actions. We cannot be allowed to be drawn in as silent participants in a process shaped by the flawed interpretation of a specific incident by the leader of a small party. In the history of this Parliament such behaviour will be interpreted as the tacit condoning of a hatchet job by a man with an overinflated opinion of himself and his role in history. [Applause.]
Let me conclude by saying that in terms of the lifetime of achievement that Madam Speaker has had, she has been recognised in international forums the likes of Holomisa, Leon and Gibson have only heard about. She is currently the co-chairperson of the Global Coalition … [Time expired.][Applause.]
Rev K R J MESHOE: Madam Speaker, we in the ACDP want to endorse the fact that the hon Speaker has played a very important role in protecting the interests of Parliament and ensuring the participation of all parties represented in Parliament. The fact that we disagree with the way she handled issues such as the arms procurement report in this House, does not detract from the fact that she has been a good Speaker. She has set a good precedent that continues to guide other Presiding Officers when they are in the Chair.
We believe that a call by the ANC for a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Speaker is not appropriate or relevant at this stage. It would be unfair for any party to obliterate with one stroke the good work that the incumbent has done during the past seven years because of one or two mistakes.
While we understand the concerns expressed by the hon Mr Holomisa concerning the arms deal, we believe they should have been raised in the correct parliamentary forum. We believe that he should have directly confronted the Speaker if he did not want to raise his concerns in the House. What the ACDP would like to see is an all-party committee without an ANC majority, as was suggested by the hon Speaker herself, to investigate the allegations made by the hon Bantu Holomisa against the Speaker. The allegations must either be substantiated or refuted. We believe that this can only be done in such a committee and not in the House this afternoon.
Lastly, we propose that the hon Mr Holomisa should withdraw his remarks and that the Speaker should accept mediation and arbitration instead of fighting this matter in court. The ACDP will abstain from voting on the motion before the House but will instead support the amended motion.
Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, today’s debate is not about the hon Speaker or the Office of the Speaker. This debate is about the ANC. The ANC as a liberation movement finds it almost impossible to act in the way that is expected of a political party in a multiparty democracy every time it comes under attack.
This motion today is merely being used as a smokescreen. It is therefore not strange that today the ANC has decided to use its three best spin doctors, woordkunstenaars, namely the hon Dr Jordan, the hon Minister Moleketi and the number one spin doctor, the hon Jeremy Cronin. [Interjections.]
As hulle drie nie hierdie saak vir die ANC se gewone lede kan regpraat en verduidelik nie, sal niemand, maar niemand, dit kan doen nie! [If the three of them cannot justify and explain this case to the ordinary members of the ANC, nobody, but nobody will be able to!]
Section 55 of the Constitution deals with accountability and the oversight functions of Parliament. Rule 206 of the Rules of the National Assembly is quite wide. Section 92(2) of the Constitution deals with the accountability of the executive.
Gister het Christie van der Westhuizen van Beeld in ‘n baie goeie artikel in Beeld Forum die volgende geskryf:
Woods vestig ook die aandag op Ginwala se vreemde beperkende versoek om ‘n regsmening, naamlik of Skoor se verslag die spesifieke insluiting van die Heath-eenheid gevra het. Die ooglopende antwoord is nee, maar daar is ‘n ander regsmening gegrond op die korrekte vraag, naamlik: het Skoor bedoel dat al vier die gespesifiseerde agentskappe, waarvan die Heath- eenheid een was, moes deel wees en ingesluit word, en die antwoord daarop natuurlik is ja.
Die bostaande bewys dat die Speaker vroeg al instrumenteel was in die uitsluiting van die Heath-eenheid en die beperking van Skoor se rol. Die vraag is eenvoudig dit: in opdrag van wie is dit gedoen?
Dit is die vraag. Vandag word die konsepbesluit gebruik om te maak asof dit oor die Speaker gaan. Dit gaan nie oor die Speaker nie, dit gaan oor die ANC. Die VF kan nie vandag die konsepbesluit voor die Huis steun nie. Dit het met die Speaker niks uit te waai nie, dit gaan oor die beskerming van die ANC. Ons sal stem vir die amendement. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Yesterday Christie van der Westhuizen of Beeld wrote the following in a very good article in Beeld Forum:
Woods vestig ook die aandag op Ginwala se vreemde beperkende versoek om ‘n regsmening, naamlik of Skoor se verslag die spesifieke insluiting van die Heath-eenheid gevra het. Die ooglopende antwoord is nee, maar daar is ‘n ander regsmening gegrond op die korrekte vraag, naamlik: het Skoor bedoel dat al vier die gespesifiseerde agentskappe, waarvan die Heath- eenheid een was, moes deel wees en ingesluit word, en die antwoord daarop natuurlik is ja.
Die bostaande bewys dat die Speaker vroeg al instrumenteel was in die uitsluiting van die Heath-eenheid en die beperking van Skoor se rol. Die vraag is eenvoudig dit: in opdrag van wie is dit gedoen?
That is the question. Today the motion is being used to make it seem as if it is about the Speaker. It is not about the Speaker, it is about the ANC. The FF cannot support the motion of the House today. It has nothing to do with the Speaker, it is about protecting the ANC. We will vote for the amendment. [Interjections.]]
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the motion introduced by the ANC to express its vote of confidence in Madam Speaker, Dr Frene Ginwala, is indicative of a crisis faced by Parliament today. The motion is a reaction to serious allegations brought against her by the leader of the UDM, the hon Gen Bantu Holomisa. These allegations are serious and warrant an investigation, as they focus on her role in the ongoing arms procurement investigation and as a leader of the legislature.
She is supposed to be impartial when dealing with matters that affect the relationship between the legislature and the executive. If there are any traces of truth in these allegations, the Speaker will be destroying the same democracy she fought for by eroding the powers of Parliament as an independent institution capable of making the executive account for its decisions and actions.
The UCDP calls for the establishment of a multiparty subcommittee to investigate and test the allegations raised by the UDM. The ANC motion to support the Speaker is not going to serve any useful purpose but will allow them to exercise their electoral strength. The crux of the matter is for the Speaker’s name to be cleared of any wrongdoing by this multiparty committee. The UCDP does not necessarily agree with the UDM that she should be dismissed as a punitive measure against her. She has made our legislature one of the best managed in the world and her record speaks volumes. We have no reason to doubt her integrity and leadership skills, as she is a capable person.
With these remarks, the UCDP will have difficulty in supporting the motion and therefore we will go for an amendment to the motion.
Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, the PAC does not support what is clearly a motion of confidence in the Speaker because the very notion of a motion of confidence implies doubt about the confidence this House has in the hon Speaker. In our view, we find it improper for the House to sit in judgment over the Presiding Officer of the House. We would prefer that a committee should be established to investigate all allegations and complaints against the hon Speaker. To do so does not imply that the hon Speaker is guilty. The truth of the matter is that our hon Speaker has been outstanding in many respects but, like the rest of us, she is not infallible.
We need a mechanism for hearing legitimate complaints against the hon Speaker. The complaints that the hon Speaker has interfered with Scopa’s work need careful investigation, not by Parliament in its sometimes inquisitorial and even charged debates. This House, with respect, is ill- suited to hear sensitive issues. It is equally improper to demand of people raising problems or criticisms to apologise before their complaints are investigated. The PAC respects Parliament, and the Constitution and will never participate in any actions that will undermine Parliament. No one is above Parliament including the hon Speaker. We are all subject to the Constitution.
The extent to which the ANC will go to divert the attention of the nation away from the real issue of investigating the arms deal, is limitless. We appeal to the ANC for the sake of transparency and accountability to allow for the establishment of a fully representative committee to investigate these complaints and to report to Parliament as soon as possible.
Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Madam Speaker, the role of Speaker of Parliament is important and facilitates, to a large extent, the success of the interaction between Government and Parliament and between political parties. This is more so in our newfound democracy where the Speaker has to guide the proceedings and functions of Parliament through the rough and tumble of party politics. A great responsibility therefore rests upon the hon Speaker and this is no easy task. Uneasy is the head that wears the crown. The hon Speaker has excelled herself up until now.
The respect paid to the hon Speaker is determined by the just and impartial way and the direction she points the mace of her authority when intervention is required. Yet, the wound a biased reprimand or intervention may inflict also leaves a scar and generates criticism. No parliament can function without rules or agreed upon conventions. They are necessary and should be honoured. To fall back on a rigid implementation of the rules to enable the majority to decide a dispute between the Speaker and political parties will not answer the question of the abuse of the Office of the Speaker. The answer will rather be found in the attitude and the application of the Speaker’s authority during the Speaker’s term of office.
Let the political parties present in Parliament create a new convention and thrash out the problems, and suggest a solution to the Speaker. This is the option that the amendment gives and which we will support. If criticism does arise, such as is the case now, let the impartiality of the decisions of the past be the final judge, and not the support of the dominant majority in this Chamber, from which source the Speaker was appointed.
After all is said and done, it is clear in my mind that the position and future of a relevant and respected Speaker rests in their own hands, and it will be determined by her own biased decisions from the Chair, and not by a vote of confidence of the majority party in Parliament. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, Speaker Ginwala, the MF supports Speaker Ginwala all the way. [Applause.] She is a remarkable woman who has to her credit outstanding achievements in politics, and she has taken Parliament to new heights during her service for the past seven years. [Applause.] Speaker Ginwala is an intelligent, respectable and dedicated woman who has represented our country both nationally and internationally on many occasions. A person of her calibre should not go unnoticed, let alone be slandered.
Even the French Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Jospin, in his address to Parliament last week, praised Speaker Ginwala for her efficiency in the post that she holds. It is unfair and unjust to blame the Speaker for issues surrounding the arms procurement deal, as she has not only acted lawfully, but was also protecting the interests of Parliament by ensuring that all parties have an equal chance to be represented.
The MF recommends that a proper investigation into the conduct of the Speaker be carried out, and thereafter parties should come to an agreement on the resolution of this matter before any further defamatory remarks are made. The MF stands by the Speaker and believes that she is innocent of any allegations against her. The MF is confident that Speaker Ginwala is still the most responsible and efficient person to hold the said position in Parliament, and that she should be given a chance to carry out her duties without any further interference by the media and party members.
The MF supports the motion. [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, the hon Frene Ginwala was elected Speaker of this Parliament unanimously. Surely, this was a vote of confidence in her. In the debate on the Vote of Parliament last year, no single member of this House opposed that Vote. Clearly, this should be regarded as a motion of confidence in the Speaker, who is the de facto Minister of Parliament. Personally, I have great respect for Speaker Ginwala, respect for the dignified way she performs her duty outside this House, and while she is presiding. If I were confronted with the conclusion of the ANC’s motion as it stands bold on the circulated Order Paper, I would support it without hesitation and with a clear conscience. But this motion stands in a particular context, a context involving a specific complicated series of events.
Some two weeks ago the Speaker arranged a meeting with the Whips or leaders of all parties. In my case, it did not make a difference! She consulted us on the way forward regarding these allegations. The honest advice of all parties was that a committee of Parliament should investigate the whole matter, not as a witch-hunt, but to reach a satisfactory solution. The Speaker herself did not want any procedure through which her integrity should be decided upon by a mere ANC majority, as will happen today.
As Speaker, the hon Ginwala is the Speaker of Parliament as a whole, and not of the ANC alone. The ANC caucus shockingly decided otherwise. I am asked here today to give my vote on a matter involving two persons - the hon Ginwala and the hon Holomisa - after only reading a few documents. That is impossible, and it would be immoral. As much as I would normally like to follow my heart and support a vote of confidence in the Speaker, this has been made impossible by the majority party’s unilateral majority bulldozing of a matter which concerns everyone in this House. I was deprived of the opportunity to get the information. I am not prepared to be a judge if I am deprived of the facts.
The AEB, therefore, has no choice but to support the amendment, and should the amendment be defeated, I have no choice but to abstain on the original motion.
Mr J P CRONIN: Madam Speaker, the hon Gibson said something with which I profoundly agree. For once he said that the people expect us not to play with Parliament. I think that is exactly the message that we as the ANC want to send to the people today, that we will not allow Parliament, its institutions and its Speaker to be played with.
But in fact this debate is not really about the Speaker, nor has it been precipitated by the actions of the Speaker. This debate is part of a wider commotion going on on the opposition benches in pursuit of sound bites around the arms deal. Notwithstanding the fact that Parliament, including them, approved the Defence Review, notwithstanding the fact that this Parliament has recently recommended, and seen implemented, a comprehensive investigation into the arms procurement process - which we welcome since it is important that that should happen - as an investigation that is going on right now as we speak, notwithstanding all of this, some opposition parties are tripping over themselves in pursuit of headlines, sound bites and TV cameras. In this scramble for attention, anything and everything is grist to the mill.
Recently, the Public Protector was slandered, on the flimsiest of rumours, and not just by publications like Noseweek, whose principal informant appears to be a discredited scoundrel, Bheki Jacobs, but even by some MPs sitting in this House who are prepared to go outside and amplify and broadcast this kind of slander. We have a strange situation here in South Africa. The Public Protector had to come to Parliament to request Parliament to protect him from the slander of MPs. And the Speaker had to tell the Public Protector, who reports to us after all, all of us from different parties, that we cannot deal with those MPs because they made the remarks outside of Parliament.
In other Houses one hears MPs challenging each other, saying: ``I dare you to say outside of Parliament what you have said here.’’ Here we have to beg some opposition MPs to come and say in Parliament what they dare to say outside in public. This is not democracy. This is anarchy. And now the Speaker, the spokesperson of our Parliament, has also been caught up in this nest-fouling frenzy. Because that is what it is - undermining the dignity of this House itself.
As many speakers, specifically the ANC speakers, have said before me, when it comes to the role of Speakers around the world, there is a broad spectrum of international examples. We have heard the Westminster example being cited time and again. Hon Van Schalkwyk also mentioned this. In actual fact, the Westminster system is the exception rather than the rule. There is no reason why we should necessarily follow it, but it is the exception. In the Westminster system, as the hon Van Schalkwyk says, the Speaker resigns from her or his political party, and never again returns to active party politics. The retired Speaker, even after retiring, is given a peerage and sits, not on one or the other side of the House of Lords, but on the cross-benches, to mark the fact that they remain in permanent neutrality. The Speaker, apparently - I do not know if this is true in the UK parliament - does not even eat with MPs. [Laughter.]
This assumption of neutrality in the British system is the exception, certainly in the Commonwealth with the possible exception of Zambia. It is also very, very rare in the rest of the world. It has evolved out of a feudal era parliamentary system, when the House was made up of aristocrats and large landowners, and when there were no political parties. It is also connected to the fact that in the UK parliament is sovereign. We are not dealing with a constitutional democracy such as we have here. The Speaker is then the personification of parliament vis-à-vis the executive. It is a role more akin perhaps to a Constitutional Court judge in our democratic system.
In the majority of other systems, the Speaker is much more typically part and parcel of the rough and tumble of multiparty democracy. One will find this in the United States and Australia, and - this is the hypocrisy of what we heard today - one will find this operating in the Western Cape legislature. [Applause.] Has Mr Doman, the Speaker in the Western Cape legislature, resigned from his party? Has he resigned? Of course he has not. The same could be said of the IFP Speaker in KwaZulu-Natal. One cannot have it both ways! But this is an important point.
I think that we want our Speakers to be part and parcel of the rough and tumble of the political system. We are living in a constitutional democracy, we are not in a Westminster-style democracy. We want Speakers to act impartially when they are chairing the proceedings of the House and when they are conveying resolutions of this House to the executive and so on. We expect them to act meticulously and impartially. But, we do not expect them to be politically neutered, as the hon Pallo Jordan said.
However, one cannot have it both ways. If they are that kind of robust Speakers, then - and this is the flipside - the Speaker must expect to be challenged more frequently in the proper ways and through the correct channels. Indeed, let us take the Australian example. Since the 1940s, there have been more than a dozen cases in which there have been motions of no confidence in the Speaker. In some cases, the Speaker survived narrowly by three or four votes. However, regarding the hon Gibson, I would like to tell him that there was no national crisis and no meltdown, nor were there any allegations of a majority tyranny when a Speaker survived a motion of no confidence as a result of the vote from his or her party.
Regarding the hon ``the sober’’ Holomisa, I would like to say that even in Australia, MPs’ criticisms of the Speaker have to be by way of a substantive motion in the House. There is no question of wild allegations or some quasi-investigative committee of inquiry. [Interjections.] The contradiction of this proposal, which comes from Mr Gibson’s actual alternative motion, is that a decision of a committee has to come to this House, in any case. One cannot avoid a debate, here, in the House. [Interjections.]
The hon member referred to allegations that need to be referred to a committee but there are no substantive allegations before this House. Nothing has been formulated in any kind of substantive motion. It is a complete contradiction. [Interjections.] What that hon member wants to do is to be able to slander and badmouth the Speaker outside, to the media, but he does not want to come to this House by way of a substantive motion so that we can really judge the matter effectively.
Let us now forget about international examples and turn to ourselves. On 18
January, the Chief Whip of the opposition, the hon Douglas Gibson, issued a
press statement - not through some motion in the House or through some kind
of substantive process but through a journalistic process. Of course, in
his statement, there were rhetorical flourishes, curtsies and bouquets.
We care about parliamentary democracy'', the hon Gibson assured us.The
Speaker’’, he told us and, he has again told us, ``has contributed
enormously to establishing the style and character of our democratic
Parliament.’’
So much for the flourishes. But, at the heart of that press statement from Mr Gibson was a very serious allegation. He said: ``The Speaker has let Parliament down. Her unnecessary legalistic approach has contradicted the view of Parliament. Her role is to represent Parliament to the executive. If she has contradicted the views of Parliament, that is a very, very serious breach of exactly what she has to do.’’
As we all know, the principal point of contention in this is the Speaker’s understanding of Scopa’s Fourteenth Report. The Speaker has quite correctly stated that the Scopa report, which was adopted by us here in this House, did not recommend to the executive that the Heath Special Investigating Unit should be included in any eventual investigation of the arms package. [Interjections.]
Being a perfectly intelligent person, the Speaker was able to read the report that we voted on and made her own independent judgment. However, just to be certain, she sought out the advice of the chief Parliamentary Law Adviser, Adv A M Meyer. Advocate Meyer is not a member of the ANC’s National Working Committee. He is not a member of the ANC’s National Executive Committee, nor is he a member of the ANC’s parliamentary caucus. The following is what the Parliamentary Law Adviser had to say and I quote:
The only reference to the Heath Unit in the Report is to the effect that the Unit and certain other investigative bodies should be invited to an exploratory meeting convened by the Committee so that the best combination of skills, legal mandates and resources can be found for such an investigation.
The report envisages that a chosen investigating body will undertake the investigation, but there is no indication that that body should necessarily be the Unit or include the Unit.
Advocate Meyer goes on:
Therefore, in our opinion, the Report does not amount to a recommendation to the Executive to refer the matter in question to the Unit for investigation.
Those are not the words of the ANC’s National Working Committee but the words of the chief Parliamentary Law Adviser.
In representing Parliament, the Speaker has to be meticulous, particularly on contentious issues like these. It is not her job to put a report onto an analyst’s couch and then sit and listen to the words and produce some kind of deep unconscious meaning from those words that are not apparent to the rest of us. She has to say precisely what it is that the report says - nothing else and nothing less. It is not the function of the Speaker to act like a psychoanalyst. But, of course, when she is meticulous and the result does not suit Mr Gibson, then he is quick to label her as ``unnecessarily legalistic’’.
The opposition must not blame the Speaker. She did not write the report. She did not vote on the report, but we did. If members believe that the actual intention of the report was to ensure that the Heath Unit should be appointed, then they should blame themselves for not making that crystal clear in the drafting. I am not sure what the problem is, but I think that maybe there is a competency and skills problem over there, and they have difficulty in translating their intentions into words. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Maybe, we should add in our motion the suggestion that more resources should be made available to the opposition members over there in order to help them to draft more clearly. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Eleven days after Mr Gibson’s press statement, on 29 January, the Speaker made herself available to Scopa. She patiently reiterated her views on Scopa and the arms procurement investigations. She has been absolutely meticulous and consistent in those views. If Mr Gibson’s attack on the Speaker - a public attack and not the one that has been brought here - was an attempt to enhance, as he said, ``the workings of our democratic Parliament’’, then the meeting on the 29th, just 11 days after his press statement, was surely an ideal opportunity - a parliamentary, not journalistic opportunity - to engage the Speaker with the concerns that Mr Gibson had trumpeted in his public statement.
I have here, in my hand, the transcript of that meeting. I have read through it very carefully - once, twice and several times. I was particularly interested to see what it is that the members of Mr Douglas Gibson’s alliance, the DP and the New NP, had to say to the Speaker. Were they going to back Mr Gibson up? Honestly, forcefully, robustly but, perhaps, politely, in countering the Speaker, were they going to say, and agree with Mr Gibson, that she had let Parliament down and contradicted the views of Parliament, and that she had been unnecessarily legalistic? Of course, they did not. One can read the report six times again and one will still not find them saying that. They knew as we know that Mr Gibson was grandstanding at the time. [Interjections.] He was not serious. He was not contributing seriously to the development of democracy in this Parliament. [Interjections.]
At the end of the interaction with the Speaker, the chairperson, Dr Woods,
said: Thank you Madam Speaker. Thank you for your time. Thank you for
taking the initiative to come and speak to us. I think that there has been
a lot of food for thought produced here.'' That was not a chairperson who
was conveying a sense of outrage that the Speaker had contradicted his
committee and let down his committee or Parliament. [Interjections.] If
anything, Dr Woods was anxious in concluding the interaction with the
Speaker to dispel the notion that it was Scopa, and not the Speaker, that
might have done something wrong. He said:I think the committee comes
away from this feeling that there is not much that we have done wrong and
that is inconsistent with regulation.’’ So, I am not sure whether Dr Woods
was implying that there was a little bit that they might have done wrong
but not very much. [Laughter.] [Applause.] I do not want to speculate on
what he intended.
Dr Woods went on to say: ``I think, we, the committee are left with a
couple of issues of interpretation and accountability issues. I know that
we will handle that positively and all learn from the eventual debates and
outcome of that.’’ I would like to assure members that there is no question
here whatsoever of Scopa or any minority view within Scopa that boldly and
honestly argued that it was the Speaker who had acted irregularly. That, of
course, is where this aspect of the whole matter should have ended. But, of
course it did not. In early May, the Scopa Chairperson - who had thanked
the Speaker so profusely at the end of that meeting, here in Parliament,
for explaining matters to the committee - the very same Dr Woods was then
running to the news agency, Sapa, and accusing the Speaker of sidelining
and interfering with Scopa.
Let us just deal briefly with the allegation as the hon Fraser-Moleketi has already done. Regarding this allegation of interfering with Scopa, it is the job of the Speaker to ensure that the committees and this House function effectively and to guide the work of these committees. Scopa - and this is what she was concerned about - had the impression or seemed to give the impression that it was going to be able to direct the investigation through bodies that are not accountable to this Parliament. What was even more alarming to the Speaker was that there was some suggestion that Scopa or the chairperson of Scopa wanted to employ a foreign forensic auditor to investigate our national arms procurement process. She suggested that this was right out of order. I think that was not interference but the appropriate guidance given by a Speaker to a committee that seemed to have lost its way.
However, the beauty contest that is going on for the opposition benches was, of course, never going to be complete without the entry of one other contestant into the fray. On 14 May, nearly four months after Mr Gibson’s press statement, Gen Holomisa the Sober took up the hon Gibson’s assault upon the impartiality of the Speaker and therefore upon the legitimacy of our democratic Parliament.
The hon Gibson learned his politics on the colonial benches of the white minority Parliament, which is why he has such a fear of majority tyranny. [Interjections.] He knows how to wrap up his barbs in Westminster finery. But Gen Holomisa’s formative political experience was, of course, a little bit different. There was nothing subtle about the former bantustan coup leader’s rambling seven-page letter to the Speaker. It is full of the buzz and excitement of someone who thinks that he might just have seized a radio station and is about to take the airstrip. [Interjections.] It is a frontal assault. It is wild. It is full of allegations, unsubstantiated rumours and complete irrelevancies. He has gone to have a drink, I am sure.
The letter - here it is - is formally addressed to the Speaker. But it is copied to its real and intended audiences - firstly, the media, secondly, the diplomatic corps, and thirdly, all UDM structures. And this forward addressee is particularly significant. The hon Holomisa is in trouble with the UDM. His own party members are unhappy with his erratic leadership. He has distinguished himself in the recent past with other wild allegations about our involvement in the DRC and so forth. The UDM is visibly a party falling apart, and the general has to do something to rally his remaining loyal troops. Otherwise he might find himself the victim of a coup. [Interjections.]
I do not want to go into the details of Gen Holomisa’s open letter as if there were some legal case to be answered in these wild allegations here. In so far as there is any legal case that arises from this letter it might be the one that the general himself will have to answer for in a court of law. Nonetheless, what, generally, does the general have to say? He says that the Speaker has been sidelining and stalling Scopa’s role in regard to the arms procurement process. But who referred the Auditor-General’s report, which had been requested by the Defence Minister in the first place, to Scopa? It was the Speaker. It was the Speaker who sought to protect Scopa in a letter to the parliamentary Leader of Government Business and the Deputy President, and it is the Speaker who has consistently offered extra resources to Scopa for the arms procurement follow-up.
The hon General the Sober further alleges that the Speaker has connived with the executive to reject the Scopa report. The executive has not rejected the Scopa report and has no power to do so. The Scopa report, which we passed here in this House, is a recommendation from Parliament. They cannot reject it. The executive has not rejected it and indeed has implemented the multipronged investigation into the arms procurement that Scopa, and we here in the House, recommended.
The hon Holomisa wants the executive to delay the investigation whilst Scopa draws up the terms of reference for such an investigation. Who is delaying the investigations? One begins to wonder. But while Parliament might recommend terms of reference for an investigation, we cannot instruct or subcontract the executive or parts of it. So we cannot set the terms of reference for an investigation. We might recommend certain terms.
Once again the members of the opposition want it both ways. In the name of the separation of powers they are quick to squeal and claim that some executive member is interfering in their work, but then they want to act as if every committee in Parliament were a branch of the executive. They cannot have it both ways. [Interjections.]
The hon general also accuses the Speaker of an abrupt and undemocratic termination - I am coming to the hon Gibson now … [Interjections] … of the debate on Tony Yengeni. In his letter, or rather press statement, the general also accuses the Speaker of the abrupt and undemocratic termination of the debate of the Tony Yengeni affair. Yet, he says, the next day the Speaker allowed him to defend himself.
Now I can only assume that the general is referring to the proceedings of the House on 27 March, when the hon Gibson stood up to give notice of a motion on behalf of the DP calling on Tony Yengeni to make a simple statement. He was then stopped by the Speaker. The Speaker said:
I have already received a letter from you, hon Gibson, to refer this matter to the ethics committee, which I have done, and I am a bit concerned now that we are going to get things muddled up.
Mr Gibson said:
Madam Speaker, naturally, I abide by your ruling.
[Interjections.] But then he requested the Speaker whether she would allow him to read the last three lines of the motion notwithstanding. And showing a lot more lenience that most of us get from the Speaker, she allowed him to complete his motion. What the hon Gibson called for was for Mr Yengeni to make a simple statement disclosing the details surrounding the acquisition of his motor vehicle. [Interjections.]
The next day, as the hon Holomisa is complaining, he was allowed to make a statement. Whether the statement satisfied him or not is a different matter. But they cannot have it both ways. They cannot call upon the Speaker to allow the hon Yengeni to make a statement and then complain when she does allow him to do that. [Interjections.]
At the multiparty Whips meeting to discuss the Holomisa letter it was clear by all accounts that the majority of opposition Whips, including the hon Gibson, were disinclined to go charging off on an adventure with the general. However, a few days later that changed when Tony Leon then also plunged into the matter. Why did he do this? He did it because there is a great nervousness, particularly on the opposition benches. They are all watching each other and they are terrified that one or the other will steal a march. [Interjections.]
It is plain to everyone that with all of its limited resources the PAC, or rather the hon De Lille on her own, has out-manoeuvred the lot of them. Single-handedly she has led the charge against the arms procurement package. I do not say that she has talked sense. She has not. I do not say that she has a good case. She does not. But there she is week after week on the front pages, the darling of the liberal press, and the key spokesperson opposing the arms deal.
How this has left the hon Tony Leon behind. How it has put his nose out of joint. How can a party with three MPs, if one can count the other two … [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded. Amendment put.
Division demanded.
Mr M T GONIWE: Madam Speaker, just before we start the division, I want to raise this point of order: We are debating in this House this afternoon a matter that has been put on the agenda by Gen Holomisa. [Interjections.] He is not here in the House. According to our information he is in the bar. [Laughter.] We want to ask you to send some officers …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, that is not a point of order. The hon member is wherever he is. That is a matter for his caucus to deal with.
Mr M T GONIWE: Madam Speaker, we shall vote with the red button on this. [Laughter.]
The House divided:
AYES - 71: Abrahams, T; Aucamp, C; Bakker, D M; Beukman, F; Blaas, A; Borman, G M; Botha, A J; Bruce, N S; Cupido, P W; Da Camara, M L; Delport, J T; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dudley, C; Durand, J; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Frolick, C T; Gaum, A H; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Gore, V C; Gous, S J; Greyling, C H F; Grobler, G A J; Groenewald, P J; Heine, R J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Koornhof, G W; Le Roux, J W; Lee, T D; Mabeta, M E; Madasa, Z L; Mahlawe, N; Maluleke, D K; Mbadi, L M; Meshoe, K R J; Mogoba, M S; Moorcroft, E K; Morkel, C M; Mothiba, L C; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Mzimela, S E; Niemann, J J; Ntuli, R S; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Pretorius, I J; Rabie, P J; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Schoeman, R S; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Simmons, S; Singh, A; Smit, H A; Smuts, M; Sono, B N; Southgate, R M; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A (Anna); Van Wyk, A (Annelizé).
NOES - 193: Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Belot, S T; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Buthelezi, M N; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Kota, F I; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Duma, N M; Ebrahim, E I; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Gandhi, E; Gcina, C I; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Gillwald, C E; Gininda, M S; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hlangwana, N L; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, N N; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M M S; Lekota, M G P; Lishivha, T E; Lobe, M C; Lockey, D; Louw, J T; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabandla, B S; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Magubane, N E; Magwanishe, G; Mahlangu, M J; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makwetla, S P; Malebana, H F; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J M; Malumise, M M; Manie, M S; Maphalala, M A; Maphoto, L I; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Marshoff, F B; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbombo, N D; Mdladlana, M M S; Mgidi, J S; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, E P; Mohai, S J; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokaba, P R; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Moloto, K A; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mpahlwa, M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mufamadi, F S; Mutsila, I; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Ncinane, I Z; Ncube, B; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt- Druchen, W S; Ngculu, L V J; Ngubeni, J M; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nkomo, A S; Nonkonyana, M; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, S B; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Omar, A M; Oosthuizen, G C; Phala, M J; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Rajbally, S; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Saloojee, E C; Schoeman, E; Scott, M I; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Serote, M W; Shilubana, T P; Shope, N R; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, S V; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Xingwana, L M T; Yengeni, T S; Zita, L; Zondo, R P.
ABSTENTIONS - 20: Baloyi, O; Biyela, B P; Cassim, M F; Dhlamini, B W; Feinstein, A J; Mars, I; Matthews, V J; Mncwango, M A; Mpontshane, A M; Msomi, M D; Mzizi, M A; Ndlovu, V B; Rabinowitz, R; Seaton, S A; Sibiya, M S M; Sigcawu, A N; Slabbert, J H; Smith, P F; Van der Merwe, J H; Vos, S C.
Amendment accordingly negatived.
Motion moved by the Chief Whip of the Majority Party put.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 194: Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Belot, S T; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Buthelezi, M N; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Kota, F I; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Duma, N M; Ebrahim, E I; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Gandhi, E; Gcina, C I; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Gillwald, C E; Gininda, M S; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hangana, N E; Hlangwana, N L; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kekana, N N; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M M S; Lekota, M G P; Lishivha, T E; Lobe, M C; Lockey, D; Louw, J T; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabandla, B S; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Magubane, N E; Magwanishe, G; Mahlangu, M J; Mahlawe, N; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makwetla, S P; Malebana, H F; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J M; Malumise, M M; Manie, M S; Maphalala, M A; Maphoto, L I; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Marshoff, F B; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Mbombo, N D; Mdladlana, M M S; Mgidi, J S; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, E P; Mohai, S J; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokaba, P R; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Moloto, K A; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mpahlwa, M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mufamadi, F S; Mutsila, I; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Ncinane, I Z; Ncube, B; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngculu, L V J; Ngubeni, J M; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nkomo, A S; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, N N; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, S B; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Omar, A M; Oosthuizen, G C; Phala, M J; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Rajbally, S; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Saloojee, E; Schoeman, E A; Scott, M I; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Serote, M W; Shilubana, T P; Shope, N R; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Thabethe, E; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, S V; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Xingwana, L M T; Yengeni, T S; Zita, L; Zondo, R P. NOES - 55: Bakker, D M; Beukman, F; Blaas, A; Borman, G M; Botha, A J; Bruce, N S; Cupido, P W; Da Camara, M L; Delport, J T; Ditshetelo, P H K; Durand, J; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Gaum, A H; Geldenhuys, B L; Gibson, D H M; Gore, V C; Gous, S J; Greyling, C H F; Grobler, G A J; Groenewald, P J; Heine, R J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Le Roux, J W; Lee, T D; Maluleke, D K; Moorcroft, E K; Morkel, C M; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Niemann, J J; Ntuli, R S; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Pretorius, I J; Rabie, P J; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Schoeman, R S; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Simmons, S; Singh, A; Smit, H A; Smuts, M; Sono, B N; Swart, P S; Van der Merwe, A S; Van Deventer, F J; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A (Anna).
ABSTENTIONS - 35: Abrahams, T; Aucamp, C; Baloyi, O; Biyela, B P; Cassim, M F; Dhlamini, B W; Dudley, C; Feinstein, A J; Frolick, C T; Koornhof, G W; Mabeta, M E; Madasa, Z L; Mars, I; Matthews, V J; Mbadi, L M; Meshoe, K R J; Mncwango, M A; Mogoba, M S; Mothiba, L C; Mpontshane, A M; Msomi, M D; Mzimela, S E; Mzizi, M A; Ndlovu, V B; Rabinowitz, R; Seaton, S A; Sibiya, M S M; Skosana, M B; Slabbert, J H; Smith, P F; Southgate, R M; Swart, S N; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Wyk, A (Annelizé); Vos, S C.
Motion accordingly agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, may I have your attention? Now that we have completed this debate, I wish to request hon members to respect what we have done here today. I think we have indeed taken a step forward in building our democracy and the institutions of that democracy.
We might want to pursue the debate on the Office of the Speaker, and that is something that we still need to attend to. I just wish to emphasise, though, that we need, as hon members, to respect the kinds of issues that we raised here today as we proceed. Clearly, we learn as we go along. I am saying this in order to emphasise the need for us to realise that it is also about the respectability of this House and this Parliament. [Applause.]
APPROPRIATION BILL
Debate on Vote No 23 - Safety and Security, and Vote No 21 -Independent Complaints Directorate: The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Madam Speaker and hon members, the cutting edge of the Government’s overall strategy to bring down the levels of crime in our country is the SA Police Service. It is a new service, exploring new policing policies in a new constitutional democracy that is in the throes of transition, change and transformation.
Besides its being a new service, the environment itself in which it moves and has its being is new. Because it is new and because it is operating in a relatively strange terrain, it is not impossible that, at times, it fails to rise to our ideal expectations. In fact, the service readily concedes that it is on a learning curve.
However, determination, courage and the utter commitment to give the criminal no quarter, is what nobody in their right mind can say those men and women in blue lack. The criminal thugs in this country know this, and their friends in the region, on the continent and, indeed, elsewhere in the world, know this as well. That is precisely why they have taken the decision to target the police for elimination.
It is my intention to dedicate this Vote to the everlasting memory of those police officers who have sacrificed their own dear lives out of a desire to create and sustain an environment of safety and security for all our people. As I do so, I would also like to acknowledge the plight that has become the lot of the families of the fallen, and to say to them, once again, we share their grief.
At the same time, I would like to make the pertinent point that, stringent as our laws are in connection with this type of offence and determined as we as a department are to ensure that members operate in a relatively safe environment, the final arbiter is our own ordinary people themselves. The murderers and the corrupters of the police do not live on the moon. They are individuals with names, homes and families within our communities. They carry out the murder of police officers, sometimes in full view of members of the public, and take cover within our communities themselves.
What is required of all of us in this House, and the rest of civil society out there, is extensive mobilisational work amongst the ordinary people for the exposure of police murderers. That work would of course have to underpin the point that police officers are the physical embodiment of the Constitution and statutes of our country, and that those who murder them are thugs bent on subverting that Constitution and our laws.
Indeed, part of the speech will be spent in pursuit of this ideal, the consolidation of that grand partnership between the Government and the people against crime. This mass mobilisation campaign has already started in Gauteng, with the emphasis being on the reduction of demand for stolen property. It will be rolled out to other provinces in the course of the year.
We shall pursue this campaign even more rigorously as we confront head-on the endemic problem of gangsterism on the Cape Flats. We have deployed hundreds of police and army officers for some time now. We have arrested many of the gang leaders and their followers, but the problem still remains with us.
In the meantime, gangsters are dispensing a great deal of favours to some members of the communities. They are terrorising and, in some instances, ingratiating themselves with well-known and respected civil and religious personalities. Only yesterday afternoon the Minister of Defence and I were told, right there in the community hall at Manenberg, by some members of that community, that some of them are actually in collusion with the murderous gangs, for the express purpose of making a living and getting their children to school.
Whilst it is true that these areas remain economically depressed, we had never expected that in a community that is terrorised daily by armed bandits, people would actually rise and attempt to justify, publicly, why some of them are working hand in glove with their very tormentors. What is encouraging, however, is the fact that the vast majority of our people in the affected areas refuse to surrender to the terror of the gangsters. They have organised themselves into neighbourhood watches and other anti-crime and anti-gang structures, to assist our drive to normalise life in our townships.
This budget must support these noble efforts. At the same time, all three tiers of government must fast-track their programmes to address and redress the economic depression in these creations of the apartheid state. For our part, as a department, we have no alternative but to intervene decisively in all these areas of rampant criminality and gang violence, using every piece of legislation in place to turn the tables against armed banditry and thuggery in Manenberg and elsewhere on the Cape Flats.
I would like to invite the MEC and the City Council of Cape Town to sit down with me, to make sure that we all contribute to a solution to the problems of gangsterism in Manenberg and elsewhere. I will talk more about this later. I concede readily that this is going to be a tough struggle, given the long history of gangsterism in these areas. However, we must, all of us, party politics aside, brace ourselves for this kind of struggle.
It might well be the case that what we are contemplating in this regard will adversely affect the lives of decent law-abiding citizens in these areas, but we have no choice in the circumstances, and all we can plead for is co-operation and understanding from our people. Obviously, the methods we have been using have not yielded the desired results.
Masixoze omnye umphini, ntozakuthi. [Let us devise other means, hon members.]
I have stated before that firearms control is a prerequisite for a safer society and our efforts in this regard prove that we are serious and committed to ridding this country of the scourge of illegal firearms. The President signed the Firearms Control Act on 10 April 2001 and regulations in support thereof are currently being drafted. Various projects are also being undertaken to facilitate the implementation of the Act, because as the House knows, this was the major concern of members of this House. These steps include: The recruitment and training of personnel and the purchase of equipment; the revamping of the Central Firearms Register, which includes the import/export element; the auditing of all firearms in the possession of state departments and institutions; the destruction of all redundant firearms in SAPS custody; and the implementation of improved control measures at ports of entry.
An additional amount of R217 million has been allocated for the implementation of this Act. The amount has been spread over a period of three financial years in order to establish efficient capacity at various levels within the SA Police Service. An amount of R57 million was allocated for the previous financial year and R82 million for this financial year. I will in the immediate future announce the first ``gun-free zones’’ in terms of this new Act. Areas plagued by violence involving the use of firearms will receive priority attention in this regard. That includes the Cape Flats.
The mobility of members is an essential and critical element in our drive to improve service delivery. Our budget has taken that into consideration, as we have allocated R410 million for the upgrading and modernisation of our vehicle fleet. Out of this amount we should be able to buy approximately 6 200 new vehicles. The distribution will be such that the vehicle shortage in the priority areas is substantially reduced. I am convinced that the distribution of these new vehicles over and above the 500 others that accrued from the closure of specialised units will greatly enhance the operational capacity at police stations throughout the country.
An amount of R155 million has also been included for the erection and purchase of police facilities. This reflects an increase of R51 million. Complete new structures which comprise mainly police stations amount to 88 facilities, whilst additions to existing facilities amount to 320. Of the total of 408 facilities, 224 are already being built. The significant number of facilities to be established will benefit the working environment of police officials and, most of all, will promote access by the public to policing and service delivery.
The SAPS is reorganising its structures to ensure a multidisciplinary approach to organised crime through the closure of specialised units and the creation of organised crime units. So far, 203 specialised units have been closed. Nine new organised crime units and 15 new units dealing with serious and violent crimes, spread over all provinces, have been created. Posts have been advertised for ten legal officials who will be placed at the organised crime units to support investigating officers in ensuring that cases are ready for court.
A total of 300 organised crime task teams will be set up by 30 June 2001 to further strengthen our capacity to deal with identified organised crime threats. These task teams are being set up in accordance with the organised crime threat analysis and will focus on identified syndicates. These units will go a long way in strengthening Operation Crackdown, which is also being reinforced by other developments which I will describe.
An additional 50 fully-equipped crime prevention units will be established at identified priority stations during this year. The stations where these units are to be established have already been identified and investigations are currently under way to determine the resource needs. These units will be in place by the end of September 2001 and will significantly enhance the visibility of the SA Police Service.
A new curriculum and training programme has, for the first time in the history of the SA Police Service, been developed for crime prevention. This programme is currently being piloted and all members involved in crime prevention will receive the new training, with the initial focus on the members of the 50 new crime prevention units.
A national rapid deployment stability force will be established by 31 October 2001 for deployment in all provinces. This force will be deployed in support of local police in flashpoint areas in instances where normal policing is not appropriate to deal with incidents of major public disorder, serious and violent crimes and disaster management. Such deployment will be maintained until the situation has been stabilised. The Rapid Deployment Stability Force will be supported by the SANDF and 43 SAPS intervention units which will operate at area level and will serve all police areas in the country.
Air-supported reaction units are being established in Gauteng and this capacity will be extended to the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape by October 2001. These units will act as quick response units to incidents of serious and violent crime, such as bank robberies, vehicle hijackings and farm attacks. Air support will also be used for aerial surveillance purposes.
Satellite tracking systems will be installed in all SAPS aircraft to enhance our capacity to deal effectively with the theft and hijackings of vehicles. The extension of this capacity is currently under investigation. Two additional helicopters have been purchased at a cost of R25 million to strengthen our air support capacity. An order has also been placed for two further helicopters. Delivery is expected at the end of October this year.
A new policy on the recruitment and use of reservists has been developed and is currently being refined. It is envisaged that it will be implemented by July 2001. The recruitment of additional reservists in accordance with the newly designed policy will commence immediately after approval of the policy. A target of 30 000 reservists has been set. These reservists will be employed, amongst other things, to strengthen crime prevention units, implement sector policing and extend sector policing in terms of rural safety.
The SA Police Service has not only been active in the operational field but has also played a part in the development of an international legal framework to combat organised and other forms of crime. The key to the successful combating of transnational organised crime is international co- operation. South Africa was one of the signatories to the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime, as well as the two additional protocols on trafficking in persons and the trafficking of migrants, signed during December 2000 in Palermo in Italy. The convention creates a complete new framework for international co-operation to combat transnational organised crime in all its forms through police and law enforcement co-operation.
Recognising the undisputed link between illicit firearms and crime, and the role of illicit firearms in hampering the safety and security of communities, the SA Police Service actively participated in the drafting of the SADC Declaration on Firearms. This declaration lays the foundation for co-operation in the Southern African region to combat the scourge of small arms and light weapons. It provides, amongst other things, for the harmonisation of legislation pertaining to firearms in the region, and for the conclusion by August 2001 by SADC heads of state of the SADC Protocol on Firearms, which will operationalise the SADC Declaration on Firearms which was signed by all the heads of state of SADC on 9 May 2001. The SA Police Service is also actively participating in the drafting and negotiation of the SADC Protocol on Firearms, Ammunition and Related Materials.
The SA Police Service actively participated in the negotiations on the UN Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components, supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime.
This protocol was finalised during February 2001, and will be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations for approval.
Various organisational priorities were also implemented during the year to support operations. I wish to refer to some of the developments in this regard. In the field of technology there are two developments in the Criminal Record Centre which will make a substantial contribution to more effective crime combating. They are the implementation of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System, and the electro-magnetic process for the retrieving of filed-out firearm numbers.
It has been recognised for a number of years that the development which would have the most significant impact on the criminal justice system as a whole was the procurement of an automated fingerprint identification system, also referred to as the AFIS system. Such a system increases the accurate search capacity of fingerprints tremendously, and reduces the time to do searches and supply criminal records and identities to the courts and investigators. This will help to reduce the number of awaiting-trial prisoners.
The Criminal Record Centre is on schedule with the implementation of this system. The national AFIS office will be operational on 24 January 2002 and 35 decentralised local Criminal Record Centres will be operational on 24 July next year. When the AFIS system is operational, information on fingerprint matches will be available in less than 48 hours.
In view of the Government’s initiatives on firearms, the Criminal Record Centre has also embarked on a research project and subsequently implemented a new process of retrieving filed-out numbers from stolen firearms and firearms used to commit crimes. The implementation of the electro-magnetic process to retrieve filed-out numbers from firearms has already produced remarkable results. In the financial year 2000-2001 a total of 8009 firearms were analysed and approximately 60% of the filed-out numbers were retrieved. This is a significant improvement when compared to previous years, when a positive rate of only 28% was achieved.
The Forensic Science Laboratory is at present setting up a DNA criminal intelligence database with the support of the European Union. The requirements for the first phase of the database have been defined and 48 new members appointed for this purpose have undergone training. [Time expired.]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Chairperson, when the hon Mr Tshwete was appointed Minister of Safety and Security, we supported many of the objectives that he outlined. We lauded him for his tough talk and his repeated warnings to criminals. When he took office, there were high hopes that his no-nonsense approach would breath life into the Government’s losing war on crime. There was almost as much goodwill and support for the new hon Minister from the opposition as there was from the side of the ANC. High expectations were created. Performance was promised and it was expected.
But the first warning signs went off on 13 January 2000, when the hon the Minister chose to call on the police to use all methods, constitutional and otherwise, in fighting crime. The endorsement of unconstitutional methods, but even more, his call for the police to use these methods made many people stop in their tracks and re-evaluate the hon the Minister’s approach. As a matter of fact, the rumblings about that controversial statement were reported in newspapers to have come from the hon the Minister’s own colleagues in Cabinet, who apparently had warned about the damage caused by that kind of statement. Newspapers mentioned hon Ministers Manuel, Erwin and Asmal as having taken issue with the importance of constitutional conduct by the police.
After that first warning sign, many others followed in quick succession. In February 2000, hon Ministers Tshwete and Maduna said, during an American CBS television broadcast, commenting on South African rape statistics, and I quote:
We have been standing here for 26 seconds and nobody has been raped.
It is hard to believe that any Minister with any understanding of our crime situation and rape figures in this country, more than 140 rapes per day on average, can even consider making such a statement. That was an insult to rape victims.
In April 2000, he said that aliens were involved in most crimes. Of course there are foreigners involved in crime, as there are South Africans involved in crime. But to stereotype all foreigners, many of whom create jobs in this country, and contribute to a stable society, is extremely irresponsible. In May 2000 a report by the Institute of Security Studies concluded that, notwithstanding all the tough talk, more violent crimes per person took place for the first five months of 2000 than at any time since
- So much for the tough talk.
In July 2000, a blanket of silence was placed on crime statistics by way of a moratorium. We were assured by the hon the Minister of the absolute necessity of the moratorium because of the supposed inaccuracy of statistical reporting. The recent lifting of the moratorium proved that there was no reason for the initial moratorium. It wasted everybody’s time and nothing has changed.
In August 2000, the hon the Minister made a blanket accusation that white women were using National Women’s Day for shopping and relaxation. This implied that white women were somehow less patriotic than other women.
In September 2000, during the height of the urban terror campaign in Cape Town, the hon the Minister cast suspicions on the Muslim community as a whole in reacting to the planting of bombs. In February this year, he launched a vicious attack on the South African Portuguese community, making sweeping generalisations about Portuguese South Africans. Also in February, at a ceremony in the Eastern Cape, the hon the Minister announced, and I quote:
There are many criminals amongst us and most of them are women.
The hon the Minister later unconvincingly tried to deny that he ever said this. Is this the conduct our people deserve and expect from a Minister? In April of this year, we had the Mbeki plot debacle, which I will come back to. Is this the conduct our people deserve and expect from a Minister?
Over the past two weeks, the hon the Minister has repeatedly been forced to withdraw unparliamentary remarks, insults and gestures in a display of parliamentary conduct which can only be described as disgraceful, especially from a senior member of this Parliament and Cabinet. Is this the conduct our people deserve and expect from a Minister?
When a minister has performed well or made progress, we believe that credit must be given. There are Ministers in this Cabinet who command respect across party-political lines, such as hon Ministers Lekota, Didiza, Manuel and others. Even those of us who are in opposition would like to support a person, regardless of party affiliation, if that person acts in South Africa’s interests.
But where Ministers have been negligent or ineffective, we believe in holding them accountable, and all of us here should do so. This hon Minister has become a national embarrassment and a liability to both this nation and to his Government. He is not fit to serve as a member of Cabinet, especially not as Minister of Safety and Security.
A Minister of Safety and security is somebody who should be trusted with the immense power at his or her disposal. The people out there should know that this is a person who will use that power wisely and with discretion, not in a gung-ho fashion. Our police deserve better.
The hon the Minister’s own Cabinet colleagues know of the damage control that they sometimes have to do after some of his actions and statements. Just ask hon Minister Manuel, who was in Washington at the time of the so- called plot announcement.
But let us return to what I think was the most disastrous, but also the most ominous incident during this Minister’s reign, and that is the so- called Mbeki plot. On 11 November 2000, we discussed in this House, during a debate on the Scorpions, the danger of unregulated police power. During that debate I said the following:
The question is not if Mr Mbeki or Mr Tshwete or Mr Maduna have intentions at present to abuse the situation. We presently have no reason to question their motives. The question is: Do we want to create a situation where future political leaders, even if it is two or five or ten years from now, may succumb to the temptation to abuse their power? Some people in the present Government may say, ``trust us’’.
I then referred to the United States, and how in their democracy the FBI was abused to investigate opposition as well as government members during the J Edgar Hoover saga. It took us a mere six months to see the same happening here.
ANC members may shout, and they may try to rally around Mr Tshwete - there are fewer of them every day - but deep down the responsible ANC members know that the so-called plot was an abuse of power that should never have happened. We also know that if this pattern continues, it will become a huge weapon of intimidation, where members of the governing party are the most vulnerable - just ask Mr Ramaphosa, Mr Sexwale and Mr Phosa.
Our impression was - and we have received no information to change our impressions - that allegations against those three gentlemen were a clumsy attempt by the Minister and some other senior ANC leaders to cause political damage to those three potential contenders for leadership positions within the ANC. Our impression still is that the excuse that it was rumours about the President’s involvement in Chris Hani’s murder is a very unconvincing smokescreen. The Minister’s contemptuous attitude towards the portfolio committee and Parliament only reinforced our impressions and suspicions, and did not alleviate them in any way.
To prove the point: During question time last week, the President admitted that up to then, the police had not approached him to make any statement on the issue. If that was the reason for the investigation, how is it possible that no statement has been taken from the central figure in the allegations? It does not make sense, and it reinforces the impression that when the first plot allegation backfired, a second fig leaf was manufactured.
Let me quote from a news report of 1998:
Last month, General Meiring told Mr Mandela about an alleged plot by senior military officers and ANC officials to overthrow the Government. His report was based on information by a single individual. Mr Mandela was furious that General Meiring used his access to him to bypass the Defence Minister Joe Modise. He also was angry that General Meiring presented him with untested and unverified information. South African President Nelson Mandela has accepted the resignation of the country’s National Defence Force Chief.
I suggest that that is what the hon the Minister should also have done. In this event, Minister Tshwete has proved that he does not have the good judgment to be trusted with power in a key Government position. He showed all the characteristics of someone who would sacrifice democratic principles and good government for internal party-political power struggles.
In conclusion, in his question time two weeks ago, Minister Tshwete mentioned John Vorster. This is ironic since it is this hon Minister who has taken on the worst elements of John Vorster in the new South Africa. We urge the President, the ANC and its leadership to rid the Cabinet of hon Minister Steve Tshwete for the sake of the credibility of this Government. The Minister is an embarrassing failure. For the sake of the country, he must go - and go now. [Applause.]
Mr M E GEORGE: Comrade Chairperson, Minister Tshwete, hon members, I will be lying if I say that I am disappointed with the last speaker. He is so predictable that he did exactly what I expected of him. He never talked about crime, which is the biggest challenge facing this country. All he did was to misuse this podium to list a catalogue of criminal acts against the Minister of Safety and Security. He was so happy, and he got so carried away, that he even forgot that this country faces a big challenge, that is, to fight crime and to make sure that the citizens of this country are protected.
He made no contribution regarding how we can fight crime in this country - typical of the Democratic Alliance. All they are good at is to behave as if they were foreigners. They have no contribution to make in building democracy in this country. So, I am appealing to Mr Van Schalkwyk - I know he is very young and new in politics - to develop to a level where he will be able to debate with us in this august House. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: He is useless! Mr M E GEORGE: I stand here to add my voice in support of this budget. The ANC supports this budget because it believes that it is reasonably adequate for the SAPS to carry out its tasks of preventing crime and dealing vigorously with crime in our country. I use the term ``reasonably adequate’’ because there is no such thing as enough money, especially for developing countries such as South Africa. What then becomes very important for the police management is to prioritise those areas which are strategic and critical in fighting crime. This means, like we said to them in the portfolio committee, that their budget must be informed by the policing priorities of the department. It means we must be linked to moneys spent and priorities.
It is for this reason that the top management of the SAPS have, during the first three months of 2000, gone through an extensive process of strategic planning during which the priorities of the SAPS were reviewed in terms of Government policy, the National Intelligence estimates and crime information, and crime pattern analysis. This was an important step in the right direction. The National Commissioner should keep it up!
The levels of violent crime and violence against women and children are completely unacceptable. It is a pity that again Mr Van Schalkwyk did not even bother to talk about those problems. He was more concerned about attacking the Minister, trying to prescribe to the ANC who should be the Minister, and who should not. Some crimes, as I will indicate below, might be stabilising or on the decrease but they remain at unacceptable levels.
For the success of the SA Police Service, we need the involvement of all people in this Chamber and all departments, especially Justice, Social Development, Health, Home Affairs, Correctional Services and the SA National Defence Force. The approach of the National Commissioner to dealing with organised crime must be supported and applauded by everybody. The National Commissioner is right when he says that people who are involved in drugs will not go to a garage to buy a car to carry drugs; they steal them or take them by force in hijackings. They do not go to firearms dealers to buy firearms, they use illegal firearms, and so forth.
Doing away with some specialised units makes a lot of sense and leads to our limited resources being used to the maximum. Specialised units to deal with family violence, child protection and sexual abuse have been strengthened to enhance the SA Police Service’s capacity to deal with crimes against women and children, as one of the speakers will show. They have not been dissolved or done away with, as our detractors would like people to believe.
Before I deal with farm murders, police murders and corruption within the Police Service, I want to urge the National Commissioner and his management to adhere to the priorities that they listed in their budget briefing to the portfolio committee because they make a lot of good sense and, if they did what they said they were going to do, it will be good for the country.
It is very painful and unfortunate that some opposition parties would stoop to the level of using attacks on farms and smallholdings and the murder of farmers to score cheap political points. I say it is painful because farmers are an important component of our society and country, not only because they are human beings but because they play a major role in economic development. [Interjections.]
That is why the Government and particularly the President take the issue of rural safety very seriously. A presidential working committee on agriculture, which meets on a quarterly basis, was established under the guidance of the President. This working committee deals with agricultural issues in general, but also focuses on security issues. Compared to 1999 incidents of attacks on farms and smallholdings stabilised during 2000, with an insignificantly small increase which is still unacceptable. Almost all provinces were affected, with the exception of the Nothern Province, the Free State and the Northern Cape. The number of murders committed during farm attacks decreased slightly in KwaZulu-Natal, the Northern Cape and the Free State. In all, the Government is doing everything to stop these cowardly acts of violence against farmers, and the rural safety plan is being implemented.
The number of police killed in South Africa, clearly shows that there is lack of respect for the police by the community. Again, this is something that we must all fight against. A larger number, which is 64%, of police are murdered off duty, though a significant number of about 35,5% are killed while carrying out arrests. Some are killed due to negligence, like not wearing bulletproof vests or not concealing their firearms in social gatherings. That still does not justify any citizen of this country killing police officers.
I wish to make a call to the media, that killing of police officers must be made headlines in all South African newspapers. All our media formations should make the killing of police officers a very big issue because it is a serious offence. Abantu bakowethu bamele ukuba basebenzisane namapolisa ukulwa obu bugebenga nobu bundlobongela. Amaxesha amaninzi amapolisa abulawelwa imipu yawo zizigebenga ezifuna ukwenza intlondi. Sicela abantu ababone abenza lo mkhuba mbi, baxelele amapolisa akufuphi ngoba ezi zigebenga zizimela apha kwezi ndawo sihlala kuzo. NoMkomishinala weLizwe ndiyamcela, umntakwethu, ukuba azame noko ukuba ezi zinxibo zawo zikhusela imizimba kwiimbumbulu, zibe ngathi ziyaphucuka. Amapolisa esidibene nawo athi noko izinxibo zeziya zakudala, zenza ke ngoku azinxibeki. Kwakufuneka ke umntakwethu azame into yokokuba zibe kumgangatho ongcono. Noko olu lwabiwo-mali ngathi alulubanga kakhulu.
Oomantyi neejaji kufuneka noko xa umntu ethe wafunyanwa enetyala lokubulala ipolisa, akahlale entolongweni ade afele apho. Nawo ke amapolisa, kuza kufuneka into yokokuba asincedise kule ndawo, asebenzisane nabantu ukwenzela into yokuba sikwazi ukuwakhusela. Ubuqhophololo ke, ukunganyaniseki nokungawukhathaleli umsebenzi wawo yenye yezinto ezixhomisa amehlo apha kumapolisa. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Our people should work together with the police to fight crime. In most instances, police get killed by criminals who want to take their firearms and use them in criminal activities. We ask that people who witness these criminal acts, should report them to the nearest police station. I would also like to plead with my brother, the National Police Commissioner, to get new bulletproof vests that are of a better standard. Police we have met, complain that the ones that they use now are old and are not easy and comfortable to wear. I think that the budget is not that bad and should allow for that.
Magistrates and judges should sentence a person who has been found guilty of killing a police official to life imprisonment. The police should co- operate with the people so that we can protect them too. Fraud and misconduct are some of the things that should be taken care of, as they are rife among the police.]
Some police are involved in all sorts of corrupt practices, like fraud, theft, sexual harassment, abuse of state assets, power and authority. I congratulate the Minister on the new vehicles that are going to be bought, and I hope that those vehicles are not going to be seen parked in front of shebeens or some police official’s house. [Interjections.]
Of course, we must accept that the SAPS Strategic Plan for 2000-2003 prioritises corruption or more broadly put the issues of integrity, as a factor central to undermining the standard of policing service which is delivered by the SAPS to the people of this country. This must be applauded and commended, but time is of the essence.
The fact that corruption within the SAPS has been prioritised within the SAPS Strategic Plan 2000-2003, and that the SAPS has developed a corruption strategy, emphasises the department’s commitment to eradicating corruption within its ranks. So, the National Commissioner should keep it up. I must emphasise, before I pass on from this point, that it is not all the police officers in the SAPS that are corrupt. In actual fact, many police officers are not corrupt, but those few police that are corrupt damage the image of the SAPS.
For the police to be effective in their fight against crime they must be transformed more quickly. It is important that police stations in black areas are as equipped as those in white areas. We have been saying this for the past seven years, though I must say that there have been some improvements, but the changes are taking place at a snail’s pace.
Racism is still rampant in the Police Service, especially in the Western Cape, where Popcru even complained to the portfolio committee. The provincial commissioner of the Western Cape was given an opportunity to respond. Up to now, he has not come back to us.
The ANC-led Government is committed to clean service, because it realises that a police service riddled with corruption and racism will not be as effective as it should be. Various structures, such as the secretariat, the ICD, and the anticorruption unit are working hard to achieve these objectives. I am getting worried, because I would have liked to talk about the secretariat and say to the Minister that that structure is very much needed by the police too, for transformation. But something must be done to make sure that it does what it was meant for.
I also wish to appeal to the Minister to see to it that the ICD is provided with enough resources to carry out its functions. I know that the Minister likes them, but I am asking him to do something to make sure that they get more money to perform their functions.
As I have said, the secretariat, which has recently been reinforced with new appointments, must realise that they have a constitutional responsibility. They must strengthen the hand of the Minister and play a vigorous role in the transformation of the service.
With unity in action against crime, crime can be defeated. I appeal to the DA and its friends that we should all close ranks, as South Africans, to fight crime. This is in line with the call made by the President in his state of the nation address - a call for unity in action. Let us all join hands and forget about what Mr Van Schalkwyk said. It is his nature to say such things, but let us all unite and fight crime. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, I am sure you will be aware that it is unparliamentary, for all of you, to read newspapers openly in this House. Please, do not read newspapers here. You have reading rooms and you can go there. As I am sitting here, I can see all of you reading newspapers. [Interjections.] Hon P Smith, please close that newspaper.
Mr V B NDLOVU: Sihlalo, neNdlu ehloniphekile, mhlonishwa uNgqongqoshe [Madam Speaker, honourable House, hon Minister] there are critical issues that the department should look at and work around in order to eliminate some perceptions that are there. When the SAPS cannot work around the clock to eliminate the drug lords, here in the Western Cape, people will really be suspicious about their involvement.
If the police are involved in car hijackings and bank robberies, people will not trust them. A case in point is the SBV case in Durban. When the police are not helping the business community to apprehend the criminals who terrorise innocent people in KwaNongoma, Hluhluwe, Ulundi, Qunu, Mt Frere and Mt Ayliff, people will not trust them. When members of the VIP Protection Unit are involved in car robberies and top officials in Durban are suspended and fired because of their involvement in these robberies, people will always have questions about the police.
If the police are not helping the victims, including abused women and children, and are even involved in chasing the victims away when they come to open cases at the police station, and even rape them at the police station where they are supposed to protect them, the Domestic Violence Act will always be seen not to be effective.
Against this background the IFP observed the following: As long as the police are killed because their dogs are making a noise, racism will be with us. Whenever police are killed when apprehending criminals and the justice system is seen to be lenient to criminals, the image of the police will diminish. Whenever there are trustworthy police members who find themselves grouped together with corrupt ones they will not be different. This is not fair to the police; it dampens their spirit. To kill a police member should be seen as tampering with or attacking the Constitution of the country itself. I am referring to those police members who are innocent and who are killed on duty.
The work of the police is to protect the citizens of this country without fail. If the police are failing to protect the citizens of this country the state has to find the reason for such behaviour and accordingly deal with those reasons as a matter of urgency.
The department should make sure that promotions occur within the department, and racial discrimination should be targeted whenever it affects police promotion. The department should always offer psychological assistance to members of the police and make it statutory in order to eliminate job-related stress, as police have to contend with cases ranging from domestic violence to murder, robbery, heists, etc. The department should do away with the suspension of members for more than one year because that is a waste of money and human resources. This defeats the very purpose of combating crime.
While the state is looking for ways to redress the problem in order to assist the police in arresting the criminals and diligently executing their duty, we, the law-abiding citizens of this country, should help the police in their investigations. Let us report what we know about crimes. Let us tell the police who did what, where, when and why. Let us stop buying stolen goods from criminals. Let us isolate the criminals from innocent people and let us identify them once and for all.
The Department of Safety and Security should make itself available to all municipalities that want to establish local police, including district council policing, in conjunction with provinces by way of offering support and technical assistance when needed. The establishment of local police at municipality and district levels is a major step in order to fight crime. Those are the police members who will relieve the national police in the investigation of petty crime, to allow them to concentrate on syndicates and commercial crimes.
When the IFP proposed the amendment of the South African Constitution to devolve the powers of the police to the provinces we were thinking along these lines, so as to make sure that the local police do function properly. We as a party knew that we could not expect SAPS members to arrest those who smoke in public.
In the department’s future budget there should be an item for municipality and district police. The department must take strong action against police officials that are found to be involved in crime. The Department of Justice must make sure that members of the community who are involved in killing police officials are not handled with kid gloves.
The IFP welcomes the little increment that is afforded to the police. We hope this will encourage them to work hard to fight criminals. The IFP welcomes the National Commissioner’s point of view that members of the police must not take democracy too far, as well as his acceleration of transformation within the service.
Transformation should be carried out at station level, so that qualified members will be able to occupy the relevant positions at station level. The IFP does not support tokenism in all spheres of government. We want to see a true reflection of population demographics in all spheres of government. The National Commissioner must strongly advise his colleagues against taking the station vehicles home, because this impoverishes the station and officers manning the station at a particular time. Some means must be initiated to discourage this behaviour. The vehicles are there to service the public.
The relationship between the Scorpions and the SAPS members is being looked at at committee level. The members will not sit back when they know that their competition is not healthy. The behaviour of some members of the Scorpions towards the police is noted with concern. The perception and image that exist of these two components of the police are known to us. The quicker we solve this problem the better it will be for us all.
The IFP is concerned at seeing well-trained members manning the gates. We want to see well-trained police taking up their posts in the police and being removed from the gates, and the gates being guarded by people who are specifically trained to do so. The IFP would like to see the public servants who work under the police being under the Police Act instead of having two or three separate rules applied in one station.
The National Commissioner should start negotiations on this matter. The IFP is appealing for all public servants employed within the service to fall under the Police Act. The co-ordination should start from the employment agreement up, to the benefit of the members themselves.
The training of SAPS members has to be improved to incorporate knowledge of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. As the police are the mirror of the country, they should be equipped to know the social politics of the country without being partisan when implementing it. The Department of Safety and Security must empower the police, especially because the National Commissioner is a civilian.
We welcome the fact that the Safety and Security budget of 2001-02 has increased by R1,4 billion. This demonstrates the Government’s commitment to fighting crime. The fact that crime prevention received the biggest slice of the increase, almost R700 million, is encouraging and it shows that the Government has realised that prevention is better than cure. It is true that crime prevention has a fundamental role to play as the knock-on effects on the entire justice system are well known. The burden of this system would undoubtedly be lessened if more crime was prevented rather than just reacted to.
It is also encouraging to see that spending on the detective service and crime intelligence will be increased by R420 million. It has been alleged that South African detectives are not as well trained as those of other countries. Hopefully, the R52 million allocated to the detective academy will address this perception strongly. The IFP will support this budget.
We have to look carefully at what the ICD mandate is all about and we have to make sure that the ICD sticks to its mandate, and also make sure that its mandate is working. The important thing is that the ICD works under undesirable pressure and a limited budget and resources. The backlog of cases that are supposed to be investigated are piling up. The workload of each investigator will always give stress to the individual people involved. The number of cases referred back to the police for further investigation when initially these cases are reported to the ICD removes the capacity of the ICD to be independent.
The nonco-operativeness of the Department of Public Works in respect of the ICD compounds the problem that the ICD faces as an organ of state. The nonavailability of offices is problematic. We need to do something to make sure that we facilitate assistance in this regard. The IFP would therefore like to propose that the Ministry must give enough funding to this section of its department.
The ICD therefore must make sure that it works independently without referring cases to the police, because those cases are referred to the ICD from the police themselves. [Time expired.]
Miss J E SOSIBO: Mr Chairperson …
Mr D M BAKKER: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: I think we all regard this debate as being tremendously important in the light of the crime situation in our country. But we note that there is one out of almost 30 Cabinet members in Parliament, and the worse part is that there is not even a quorum in this Chamber for this debate to take place. I think that is shocking.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! That is not a point of order any way. We note your statement, but that is not a point of order.
Mr D M BAKKER: Mr Chairperson, in terms of the Rules I am raising a point of order that the members in this House do not constitute a quorum. The Rules are very specific in that regard.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Okay!
Miss J E SOSIBO: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members of Parliament, the ANC welcomes and appreciates the increased budget for Safety and Security for the year 2001-02.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Mr Chairperson, I am so sorry. If a point of order is being taken about a quorum, proceedings cannot just carry on as though the point of order has not been taken.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I have already ordered the Table to count and report to me. I will come back to that.
Miss J E SOSIBO: Chairperson, the fact that Safety and Security has set down crime priorities in terms of their strategic focus, namely, organised crime, serious and violent crimes, crimes against women and children, and improving service delivery, is applauded.
Sihlalo, thina bakaKhongolose siyawubona umsebenzi owenziwe nguMnyango wokuPhepha nokuVikela ekulweni nobugebengu kanye nodlame. Lokhu asikufundi emaphepheni. Asifundi ngazo lezi zinto, futhi asizizwa ngalabo abazenza ongoti kwezokuphepha nokuvikela. Thina njengamalungu ePhalamende aseKomidini yezokuPhepha nokuVikela, umsebenzi wethu ngukuqinisekisa ukuthi umsebenzi wokulwa nobugebengu nodlame uyenziwa. Sisebenzela futhi ukuthi siqiniseke ukuthi izinsizakusebenza zokwenza lo msebenzi zikhona, ziyatholakala zisetshenziswe njengoba kulindelekile. Yingakho nje sithi umsebenzi kaNgqongqoshe noMnyango wakhe siyawubona futhi uyancomeka.
Ngithanda ukusebenzisa leli thuba ukubonga uNgqongqoshe, uMphathi wamaPhoyisa uKhomishana uJackie Selebe, ngokukhuphula umholo wamaphoyisa kulo nyaka. Isinqumo sokwenyusa umholo emaphoyiseni sifike ngesikhathi esifaneleyo lapho amaphoyisa ehlaselwa futhi ebulawa yizigebengu, ngoba ezixakile emsebenzini wazo. Sinethemba ukuthi le miholo izofaka umdlandla emaphoyiseni ukuze kuliwe nobugebengu.
Okubalulekile kithi ngukuthi amaphoyisa elekelelwe ngumphakathi ekulweni nezigebengu. Kubalulekile kakhulu ukulekekelelwa kwamaphoyisa ngumphakathi ngohlelo lwe-community policing ukuze kunciphe izinga lobugebengu, kwehle nodlame.
Sikuthokozele kakhulu ukukhishwa kwezibalo zobugebengu ukuze umphakathi kanye nathi siqonde ukuthi ubugebengu buyehla noma buyenyuka na. Ukukhishwa kwalezi zibalo ngaphambili bekungezuveza lesi sithombe esinaso manje, ngoba bezingashayi emhlolweni. Bezenyelisa ngisho namaphoyisa emizameni yawo engaka emsebenzini wawo. Bezenza kube sengathi awenzi lutho. Sibonile-ke ukuthi cha nokho luyehla udlame nobugebengu.
Impi yokulwa nodlame nobugebengu yinto ephambili kakhulu kuHulumeni wethu. Yingakho nje sithi kusekuningi okufanele sikwenze. Nakuba izibalo mayelana nobugebengu ezikhishiwe kabusha nje zikhomba ukuthi udlame luyehla, sekukhona ezinye izinhlobo zobugebengu ezisephezulu ngokwamanani. Lapha singabala ukuphangwa kwezimoto, kwamabhange, kwabantu nezimoto ezithwala imali kanye nokubulawa kwabalimi. Lolu khondolo lukhombisa ukuthi lolu hlobo lobugebengu luphethwe ngongqondongqondo bezigebengu abacupha yonke imigoga abangabambeka ngayo.
Siphakamisa-ke kuNgqongqoshe ukuthi amaphoyisa anikwe izinto zokusebenza eziphilayo futhi ezanele. Siyethemba ukuthi isabelomali salo Mnyango sonyaka ka-2001-2002 sizosiza uNgqongqoshe noKhomishana wamaPhoyisa kanye namaphoyisa jikelele ekunqandeni udlame ezindaweni oludlange kuzo. Lapho ngifisa ukubala izindawo ezinjengePitoli, iGoli kanye ne-Cape Flats lapho udlame lwemigulukudu luthathe imiphefumulo yabantu abangenacala nabangahlangene nempi yale migulukudu. Ukunqotshwa kodlame e-Cape Flats kufanele kube ngomunye wemigomo ephambili kulo Mnyango kulo nyaka. Ukunqotshwa kwale migulukudu ekulesi sifunda kumele kuhambisane nohlelo lokulwa nokuhwebelana ngezidakamizwa ezingekho emthethweni.
KuMhlonishwa uNgqongqoshe kanye noKhomishana mangisho ukuthi iKapa ikakhulu e-Sea Point, seliphenduke isidleke semigulukudu ehweba ngezidakamizwa nalaba abadayisa imizimba kanye nabafanyana abasetshenziswa ukuthengisa izidakamizwa ngoba bengasebenzi.
Ingosi yamaphoyisa ikhombisa ukuthi sibhekene nebhomu elingaqhuma noma nini. Maduze nje i-Sea Point izoba nezinkinga ezifana nezase-Hillbrow. (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)
[Madam Speaker, we in the ANC appreciate the work that has been done by the Department of Safety and Security in combating crime and violence. We do not hear about this from newspapers. We do not learn about these things and we do not hear from those who call themselves experts in safety and security.
Our task as members of Parliament in the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security is to ensure that the work of fighting crime and violence is done. We are working to ensure that equipment to do the work is available and is used as expected. That is why we appreciate the work that has been done by the Minister and his department.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and Commissioner Jackie Selebi for increasing the salaries of the police this year. This decision came at an appropriate time, when police are attacked and killed by criminals because they are focusing on the work they are doing. We hope that these salary increases will motivate the police in their fight against crime.
What is important to us is that the community, in combating crime, should assist the police. It is important that the police are assisted by the community through the community-policing programme so as to reduce crime and violence.
We are glad about the release of crime statistics so that the community and we will know whether crime is decreasing or increasing. If these statistics were released earlier on, they would not have given the picture that we have now, because they were incorrect. They demotivated even the Police in their great endeavours. They sketched the picture that the Police were not doing their job. We have seen that in fact crime and violence are decreasing.
The fight against crime and violence is an important thing to our Government. That is why we say there is still a lot to be done. Although the latest statistics show that violence is decreasing, other types of crime are high in number. Here we can mention car hijacking, bank robbery, robbing of people and cars that transport money and the killing of farmers. This shows that highly intelligent criminals, who avoid all the routes through which they could be trapped, plan these crimes.
We would like to suggest to the Minister that police should be given adequate and appropriate equipment. We hope that the budget of this department for 2001-2002 will help the Minister, the Commissioner and the police force in general to fight violence in places where it is prevailing. Here I want to mention places like Pretoria, Johannesburg and the Cape Flats, where gangsterism has taken the lives of innocent people. Putting a stop to violence on the Cape flats should be one of the primary policies of our Government this year. Defeating these gangsters in this province should go hand in hand with the plan to fight drug trafficking and trading in other illegal substances. I would like to say to the Minister and the Commissioner that Cape Town, especially the Sea Point area, has become a place of gangsters who trade in drugs. It is also a place of sex workers and boys who are used to sell drugs because they are unemployed.
The police unit shows that we are facing a bomb that can explode at any time. Very soon the Sea Point area is going to have problems similar to those of Hillbrow.]
We need to act now if we want to stop the time bomb that is expected to explode in this area where international drug lords have taken over.
Ngingakahlali phansi, ngithanda ukugcizelela ukubaluleka kokuthi sonke sisebenzisane noMnyango wezokuPhepha nokuVikela ekulweni nobugebengu nodlame. Ngifisa nokugcizelela ukuthi imisebenzi yakhe uNgqongqoshe noMnyango wakhe siyayibona nakuba kukhona abanye abangathandi ukuyibona. Thina njengoKhongolose sizimisele ukuthi sisebenzisane namaphoyisa, siwasize ekulweni nodlame nobugebengu. Ngokunjalo, sinxusa umphakathi wonke ukuthi kubanjiswane, udlame nobugebengu akuyona into yomuntu oyedwa angakwazi ukuyinqanda eyedwa, kepha ngokubambisana sonke singakwazi ukukunqanda. (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.) [Before I sit down I would like to emphasise that we should all work together with the Ministry of Safety and Security in fighting crime and violence. I would like to emphasise also that we really appreciate the work of the Minister and his department, although there are those who do not want to appreciate it. We, as the ANC, are prepared to work with the police and to help them fight crime and violence. Likewise, we ask the community to join us. Fighting crime and violence is not something that can be done by one person, but together we can.]
The unacceptably high level of serious and violent crime in the country is a matter of great concern to all of us. That is why we will support him all the way, because we know better what the needs of our people are. We do not need any DA so-called political and crime analysts to tell us whether crime is increasing or decreasing. We are in Government, we have access to information and not the opposition. We will triumph in the victory against crime.
Sizonqoba! Ngiyabonga. [We will win! Thank you.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Adv Bakker and hon Gibson, the counting has been completed, and we do have a quorum. Mr D H M GIBSON: Chairperson, it is a great relief.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you.
Adv A H GAUM: Chairperson, the DA is not negative about South Africa. We are positive that our future can be a prosperous and a peaceful one - this is our vision and our goal. But we also realise that our peaceloving people are under serious and constant attack. We enter this debate today against a backdrop of the latest crime statistics that have finally been released. For 18 months South Africans have been victims of Minister Tshwete’s information blackout which did not allow them to know where the crime hotspots were. The moratorium has made people feel less safe rather than more safe. And the latest statistics have given them little hope that the battle is being won.
Today South Africans know that they are more likely than before to become a victim of robbery, assault and housebreaking. They know that South Africa is more violent than ever before. They, too, share our gratitude that for now some other crime trends have stabilised, but they take little comfort from the fact that this only means that they are just as bad off as before. They want to know from the Minister what happened to his promise of ruthless action against criminals. What happened to his warning to criminals that their time was up.
Hulle wil weet wat geword het van sy belofte gedurende verlede jaar se debat dat hy misdadigers sal ``gas gee’’. [They want to know what happened to his promise in last year’s debate that he would give criminals blazes.]
The people of South Africa are tired of living in the crime capital of the world. They are tired of being prisoners in their homes, while criminals have the freedom to do as they please. People are tired of hollow promises and they demand delivery. Perhaps the Minister has erred. Perhaps the Minister realises that there is a dedicated shift in the public mood from despair to anger, which threatens to explode if his Government does not get crime under control. Perhaps the Minister realises that South Africans appear to be more willing to take the law into their own hands. Does the Minister realise that it is the state’s responsibility to safeguard the community and that he must take the blame for failing in his duty?
An HSRC survey found that 40% of South Africans believe that the Government has no degree of control over the crime situation in our country. The loss of confidence in the state’s ability to guarantee people’s safety is a serious threat to our democratic order. The public wants to know from the hon Minister why the police are unable to do the work they have been set to do. They want to know why there is still such a shocking shortage of police officers, vehicles and other resources at our police stations.
The DA’s audit of police stations has revealed that we have a crippled police service. At Mmabatho police station, there are three more detectives this year than there were last year, but the average caseload per detective has increased from around 30 cases to almost 70 cases. Much like the budget increase of 8,9% makes no provision for inflation, the improvements that are taking place do not take account of the fact that levels of crime are also increasing.
In view of the fact that the Commissioner of Police refused to unveil numbers of police shortages last week, we challenge the Minister to acknowledge the severe shortages at police stations and to acknowledge the glaring deficiencies in this budget.
The dismal situation we have is, in a nutshell the following: The Government disregarded the staff complement of the 10 police forces of the former TBVC states, or homelands, when tabling its first budget for the consolidated SA Police Service. They then calculated that we needed 160 000 police officers, but reduced this number, without any explanation, to 127 000.
Today we have only 122 000 police officers. This budget only provides for a personnel increase of 1 000 members during the coming financial year. This will mean that the Western Cape, for instance, will be entitled to 111 of these new posts, while it loses 500 members every year. [Interjections.]
Given these personnel shortages, it is not surprising that crime has spun out of control. We need a dramatic increase in the recruitment of new members, an increase that this budget will clearly not provide. We also need the equipment and resources required for this vital service. Unless this is provided, the people can only conclude that this Government is not really serious about crime.
The DA has identified shortages at police stations, but these are shortages that the Minister is well aware of. Even the Minister’s own figures, contained in an answer to one of my recent questions, portray a sad, but widespread, story. At virtually all metropolitan police stations in this country, there are shortages of police vehicles. The Chatsworth station in Durban has a shortage of 27 vehicles. In Johannesburg, the Booysens station has a shortage of 60 vehicles and Johannesburg Central has a staggering shortage of 119 vehicles. Pretoria Central has a shortage of 75 vehicles. In Vulindlela in East London, the lowest kilometre reading is 160 000 km, while it is 182 000 km at Radio Control in Port Elizabeth. At CR Swart Square, there is a vehicle with 790 000 km on the clock.
How can we expect from our police officers to effectively fight crime under these conditions? No wonder that more than 4 000 police officers left the service last year. How can we tolerate the fact that almost 7 000 members are illiterate and that very little is being done to remedy this? [Interjections.]
How can we expect detectives to solve crime when many of them receive only a crash course in investigative skills? None of the detectives at the kwaMashu or Orlando police station have trained at the detective academy. How can we expect them to investigate and solve crimes when the average caseload per detective is 120 dockets at kwaMashu. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members must please contain their excitement. Please proceed, hon member.
Adv A H GAUM: At Alexandra police station there are 15 000 cases outstanding.
At virtually all police stations one visits, members of the SAPS will tell one that if this Government would only give them the staff support and the tools they need, they would be able to do the job. This is a plea from the police, but today it is the demand from the public. This is a demand that clearly does not get the attention it deserves in this budget.
The only people in this country who would welcome this budget, are the criminals themselves. Unlike President Mbeki’s ``quiet diplomacy’’ approach, the Minister prefers talking tough. However, the effects of both are the same. Criminals carry on as they please. Such an inadequate budget fails those victims quoted in the Minister’s statistics, it fails their families and communities and it fails the country.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, are you rising on a point of order?
Mr M E GEORGE: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to call members of Parliament criminals? [Interjections.] The hon member said that people who welcome this budget are criminals, and we have said that we welcome this budget. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member at the podium, would you please clarify what you said. Can you just refer to that part? We will give you the time. Just look at that part quickly.
Adv A H GAUM: What I said is that the only people in this country who would welcome this budget are the criminals themselves, because it is an inadequate budget. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I think that that is perfectly in order, you can carry on, hon member.
Adv A H GAUM: Thank you. I would like to tell the hon Minister that these are people like former commissioner George Fivaz and Advocate George Bizos.
Dit is mense soos Jannie en Annelise Visser van die plaas Luiperdskloof naby Ceres, wat vanoggend begrawe is. Het dit nie tyd geword dat die barbare wat weerlose mense op plase vermoor straf kry wat by hierdie dade pas nie? [Tussenwerpsels.]
‘n ANC parlementslid het verlede Sondag die swaarste straf vir die Ceres- booswigte bepleit. Gaan sy partygenote hom nou kruisig of dink hulle dalk ook dit het tyd geword om ons af te vra of ons huidige strawwe werklik by die wreedste vorms van misdaad pas. Voel die meerderheid lede in dié Huis werklik dat die doodstraf uit die bose is wanneer ‘n boer of plaaswerker weerloos en afgesonder wreedaardig vermoor word? [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs folows.)
[These are people like Jannie and Annelise Visser of the farm Luiperdskloof near Ceres, who were buried this morning. Is it not time that the savages who murder defenceless people on farms receive a punishment appropriate to these crimes? [Interjections.]
Last Sunday an ANC member of Parliament pleaded for the most severe punishment for the villains from Ceres. Are his fellow party members now going to crucify him or do they also think it is about time for us to ask whether current forms of punishment really befit the most brutal types of crime? Do the majority of members in this House really believe that the death penalty is out of the question when a defenceless and isolated farmer or farm labourer is brutally murdered? [Interjections.]]
But, instead of empowering the police to fight crime and catch criminals, we have a Minister who shoots his mouth off at every opportunity. When he is not targeting the Portuguese community or women, he is implicating three of our most distinguished businessmen as plotting to overthrow President Mbeki. When straightforward questions pertaining to this plot are put to him, the Minister brushes them aside and resorts to insulting those asking questions and calls them cowards, spies and liars.
Mr T R MOFOKENG: Chairperson, on a point of order: I may not have got it clear but I understood the speaker to say that all those who accepted this budget were criminals. [Interjections.] He did repeat that. What I am saying is that we, as the ANC, have adopted and accepted it. So, was he referring to us?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, you are making the same point that the hon George made. I think that I indicated that, having asked the member at the podium to explain what he had said when he had referred to that, it was perfectly within the bounds of parliamentary practice. Unless there is some additional or different point on that, I think that I have cleared it already.
Adv A H GAUM: Chairperson, I would like to ask the hon Minister if he realises that he is becoming an embarrassment to Parliament, the police and his own party, or is he too hard-headed to understand this? [Interjections.] Does he really think that South Africans are so stupid as to believe that he has won a debate when they see him waving his fists in Parliament and shouting at our benches without answering simple questions, simple questions that even a child would understand, such as, whether case dockets like this one have been opened against … [Interjections.]
Prof B TUROK: Chairperson, on a point of order: It seems to me that the speaker is way beyond the bounds of what is allowed for the dignity of Parliament and the Minister. [Interjections.] I ask you, Chairperson, to make a ruling that the manner of speaking of this hon member goes beyond what the Rules allow in terms of the dignity of this House. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, there are two issues here.
The first one is that when it comes to the Votes, the widest degree of latitude is allowed in covering the topic. Therefore, it is a parliamentary tradition and it is a convention that one allows the widest degree of latitude. That, I think, we will allow. That is the first part.
Concerning the second part, I think hon members will recall yesterday that the Deputy Speaker made a point in which she said that she did not want this as a point of order on which a ruling would be given, but encouraged members to moderate their use of language in order that, through moderate use of language, hon members were in a position to advance their arguments and have them received properly on the other side.
All I can do is to repeat the wisdom that was expressed yesterday by the Deputy Speaker in that it is really a matter of judgment of the person at the podium, and it is not something, really, that the Chair can make a ruling on. That is how I would like to guide this matter. [Interjections.] Now I will take, if hon members will allow me now … Is there a second point of order, hon member?
Prof B TUROK: Chairperson, it was in that spirit that I raised the point of order. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you. [Interjections.] Yes, hon member? Adv A H GAUM: Chairperson, the Minister failed to answer … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order, Adv Gaum! [Interjections.] Yes, hon member? [Interjections.] I cannot hear you.
Mr D M BAKKER: Chairperson, I wanted to address you on the same point of order. I think you gave an excellent ruling, except to say that nothing that we say on this side of the House can ever be as offensive as what some of the Cabinet Ministers say during Question Time. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, that is not a point of order and it is straying from the point. I think we have a perfect understanding, and maybe if we go along with that understanding … [Interjections.] Yes, hon Deputy Minister Matthews?
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairman, if there were going to be personal attacks on the Minister, he should have been given notice that this was going to be done. He should have known that he was going to be subjected to personal attacks. [Interjections.] The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Let us also accept here that what the Deputy Minister says has validity to the extent that where you - an hon member - wish to attack another hon member, you generally give that hon member notice. It is a courtesy that that member be in the House at the time when the criticism is being made. Now, the fact that in a debate such as this one, which is the debate on a Minister’s Vote, the Minister is in the House and that notice can be dispensed with. Also, I think we must bear in mind that the Minister will have the right to reply at the end of the debate, at which point he will be able to answer some of these criticisms, robust as they may be. So, that being the situation, I would now like the hon member to continue with his speech.
Adv A H GAUM: Chairperson, the Minister still failed to answer what charges appear in this dedicated space on the front cover of dockets, if dockets exist. Who laid these charges and what statements, aside from that of James Nkambule, appear on the inside of these documents? [Interjections.] The police assure me that they will never start an investigation without a charge and without opening a docket. [Interjections.]
It is ludicrous for the Minister to suggest that this information is confidential, because he was willing to make the incredible revelation that a charge of murder was being investigated against the President. The fact is that with every single appearance in this House, he is becoming more unfit to be the Minister of Safety and Security. [Interjections.] When he is not appearing, he is conniving to undermine Parliament’s oversight role by withdrawing from a debate on the plot and by keeping Commissioner Jackie Selebi from appearing before the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security to answer questions relating to the plot. [Interjections.]
We have also been told that in about November last year. SABC TV interviewed both the Minister and Mr Nkambule regarding the alleged plot, but these interviews were never broadcast. If it is indeed the case that he was interviewed, the people would like to know from him whether the President and the Commissioner of Police knew about these interviews. Also, by whom and, more importantly, for what reason a decision was made not to broadcast them? The people are tired of cowards, lies and Nkambule’s spy stories. They want answers. [Interjections.]
Moreover, they want to know whether this budget is going to be used to fight crime or to sort out ANC cadres. The people have the right to know whether the Minister is conducting a bona fide police investigation or, as they widely suspect, whether the Minister is abusing and misusing his position and the taxpayer’s money.
A Minister of Safety and Security should not be policing the internal party squabbles within the ANC; he should not be waving his fist at members of Parliament. He should use the fist of the state against the murderers, rapists and thieves that are bringing this country to its knees. [Interjections.]
As this Minister is clearly unable to open his eyes to the bloody nightmare of crime, shattering our dream of a free and prosperous South Africa, and doing the job he is supposed to do, he should be fired. That is what Mr Ramaphosa would have done if he was president. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr R P ZONDO: Chairperson, after having listened to allegations by hon members of the DA about certain incidents, I am tempted to amend my speech a little bit to accommodate an incident which I think hon Marthinus van Schalkwyk and hon André Gaum omitted as part of their record list, and that is the collapse of the statue of a former apartheid prime minister on 31 May.
It leaves me cold, completely cold, just like the speeches they make. This reminds me of the words of Jimmy Kruger. Hon members will understand why. Jimmy Kruger must have jumped in his grave as a result of the impact of the collapse. Do hon members know why it collapsed? That is anathema. Some of the hon members in this House are the unavoidable consequence and they are going to get it.
Le batla serulumula ka mo morago. [Lesego.] [They need sustained pressure. [Laughter.]]
On the other hand, people such as P W Botha, Tony de Klerk, that hon member and Marthinus van Schalkwyk must have had a fright because of that incident. Even today one can still see their green faces and read the trauma on their faces. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, did you say Tony de Klerk?
Mr R P ZONDO: No, I said Tony Leon.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All right. I thought you said Tony de Klerk. [Interjections.] [Laughter.]
Mr R P ZONDO: Be cool, be cool, be cool. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] I would not be surprised if the DA made unfounded allegations about the collapse, alleging that Minister Steve Tshwete went and stood in front of it and ordered it to fall, saying: ``You go down, you go down.’’ This will not surprise our side. Maybe the hon members are still working on that allegation. Although the collapse was due to structural failure, the DA cannot come to terms with that fact. Instead they want an investigation to be carried out. Sorry, DA, that was a structural fault.
Modulasetulo, dipolelo tsa batho ba go swana le ba DA, rena ba lekgotla la ANC, re di tlwaetse. Re di amogela ka tsebo ya gore ke tsa batho ba fafatla. Seo rena re se tsebago ke gore mosito wa go kaonafatsa le go tlisa toka le khutso go batho ba gabo rena ba Afrika Borwa, le tswalampsa ya Afrika Borwa ka kgopelo yeo e dirilwego ke moukamedi wa naga ya Afrika Borwa, mohlomphegi Mna Thabo Mbeki, go rena dipolelo tsa bona di re gopotsa polelo yeo e ilego ya bolelwa ke … (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)
[We in the ANC are used to the utterances of hon members of the DA. We accept them in the knowledge that they are made by delirious people. What we do know, however, is that the pace of improving and bringing justice and peace to all our people in South Africa as well as of the renewal of Africa, as proposed by our head of state, the hon Mr Thabo Mbeki, is on course. Their utterances remind us of what was said by …]
… one of the senior members of the DA, who is a candidate for Minister of
Safety and Security, wishfully thinking of Tony Leon’s cabinet. During the
preparation of the Firearms Control Bill he said in the portfolio committee
meeting: Whatever amendment the ANC could make, the DA shall never vote
for this Bill.'' The question followed:Why?’’ The response was:
Because the DA represents apartheid.'' That is how I understand the
Deurmekaar’’ Alliance. [Interjections.]
Die Deurmekaar Alliansie. [The confused alliance.]
On 12 October 2000 the DA voted against this Bill in this House, and this statement was made by the hon Boy Geldenhuys, who has been replaced by the hon Gaum, a political toddler who is learning fast about the strategies and tactics of ``fight back’’, as a representative of the aggrieved constituency. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Hon member, are you rising on a point of order?
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Chairperson, on a point of order: The hon speaker is deliberately misleading the House.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, you know that that is not a point of order. [Interjections.] Order! Order! Hon members, if you are aggrieved by what is being said, the remedy you have is that when you, or a member of your party, comes to the podium, you can correct the matter. [Interjections.] But it is not for the Chair … [Interjections.] The Chair has to preserve an impartial position - as we heard during the debate earlier today.
There is no ruling that I can give on that. So, therefore, if you are aggrieved by that, when your turn comes at the podium, then you can return the compliment. [Interjections.]
Hon Geldenhuys, would you please come to the microphone again? [Interjections.] It is unparliamentary to say that anyone is ``misleading’’, when he is not deliberately misleading. In respect of that point that you raised, I would ask you to withdraw, please. [Interjections.]
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairman, I am not going to withdraw that statement, because he is misleading the House. The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, please remain at the microphone. Let me take a little moment to explain to you againÿ.ÿ.ÿ. [Interjections.] Order! No member of this House may say that any other hon member is deliberately misleading the House. The consequences of that make it impossible to have a Parliament as we understand it, and being an hon member of this House, it is in your interests, as much as in the interests of Parliament as a whole, that we keep the integrity of the House intact. Therefore, I appeal again to you as a member of long standing, to recognise that, and to support the Chair in withdrawing.
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Chairperson, what other remedy do I then have? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, as I indicated, the remedy that you have is that you can approach the Speaker or the Presiding Officer to make a statement at some point. You could participate in the debate, or when your turn comes and you are at the podium, you can do that.
Hon members here have requested the right to hold a robust debate. I think in the spirit of that it would be fair that we allow the robust debate without charging the House, or individuals, at the base level that they are deliberately misleading the House.
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Chairperson, I will withdraw … [Interjections.] … but I will make use of your first option, and I will approach the Speaker for an opportunity to make a statement. [Interjections.] However, I withdraw it.
Mr R P ZONDO: Motlatsamodulasetulo, e re ke se tsentshe gagolo serumula se. [Chairperson, let me pressurise them even further.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, I am sorry, there is another member who is rising on a point of order.
Mr M RAMGOBIN: Mr Chairperson, I would like to have your ruling on this. When a member of this Parliament defies an instruction from the Chair, I believe, in terms of the parliamentary Rules, that member should be ordered out of the House, and not be subjected to a lecture from the Chair in the form of an appeal. I think the integrity of all other members present in this House is compromised. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, there are remedies that are available to the Chair. But the Chair also has to exercise a certain amount of discretion. In a debate such as this, where the emotions are running fairly high, it is in order for the Chair to guide and to direct. May I direct the attention of the hon members, this afternoon, to a resolution or a motion that was before the House. One of the points that was made was that the presiding officers would have to guide and to direct and that, therefore, before one reaches for punitive measures, the presiding officer should be allowed to use his or her discretion. I would like to suggest that we leave it at that, and the presiding officer would be the judge when a more serious approach should be used.
Mna R P ZONDO: Ka lebaka la gore ke bona gore serumula se se ba swere, se a ba šoma, le gona ga ba kgone go se swarelela, ke tla tsena mo tabeng. Ba tla no e nyanya e kitima. (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)
[Mr R P ZONDO: Since I realise that the pressure I have exerted is working on them, I will now focus on the subject under discussion. Ways and means will have to be devised to ensure that success is achieved.]
Ek moet net ‘n perd ry sonder saal, Salie! [Gelag.] Ja. [I must simply ride a horse without a saddle, Salie! [Laughter.] Yes.]
The President, in his state of the nation address in February this year, once again stated that safety and security of all citizens is a fundamental right, and that the Government will continue to pay the necessary attention to this issue of crime.
Crime results in deprivation of rights and dignity of citizens. It poses a threat to loving people of our country, strikes fear into the hearts of South Africans from all walks of life and prevents them from taking their rightful place in the development and growth of our country.
For this reason, the Government regards the prevention of crime as a national priority. Cabinet initiated the National Crime Prevention Strategy in March 1995. In particular, the NCPS is based on the development of wider responsibility for crime prevention and a shift in emphasis from reactive crime control, which deploys most resources towards responding after crime has already been committed, towards proactive crime control.
My understanding of this strategy is to focus on those stations and areas where most of the crimes are being committed to empower the police stations in those areas, and to focus resources where they are really needed. At the same time, infrastructure is necessary at the station level to ensure that crime intelligence is fed from the grassroots level into the information system of the SA Police Services. We know that technology comes at a price, but holds tremendous benefits in terms of increased productivity and effectiveness.
Ke a tseba gore ditiragalo le maitapišo a go swana le a a š etše a direga. [I know that events and efforts like these are now taking place.]
In terms of training, much has been done regarding an establishment of crime intelligence officers at the station level. The challenge that we are faced with as Government is to take hands with our sons and daughters in the police services to fight this monster of crime, to ensure safe communities where one can move around without fear of rape, hijacking, house-breaking and so on. This can be achieved by actively participating in community police forums, as well as programmes such as rural safety plans and supporting reservists.
Ka boikokobetšo, ke dira kgopelo go batho gore ba tlogele go thekga mekgatlo e tletšego boganka le lesenyo go swana le Mapogo a Mathamaga le kangaroo courts. Yoo a šikinyegago yena o a kwa gore ke bolela ka eng, ka gore o kgona go tloga Randfontein a kitimela Mamelodi go nyenefatša ka maikemišetšo a go uša setšhaba seo. Ke selo sa kgale seo, ebile e fetile. O a tseba. (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)
[My humble appeal to the public out there is that people should refrain from supporting vigilante groups such as Mapogo Mathamaga and kangaroo courts that are involved in terror tactics, violence and destruction. Anyone who is aware of these groups will know what I am talking about, because he or she can move from Randfontein to Mamelodi with the intention of bringing those communities down. He knows full well that it is an old thing and has passed with time.]
We should stick to and follow the guidelines of the National Crime Prevention Strategy.
In conclusion, the ANC is encouraged by other role-players that are involved in specific projects, plans or initiatives impacting on crime within the geographical spread of various provinces, in particular metropolitan and rural projects. Role-players such as Business against Crime focus on projects related to the improvement of the criminal justice system, service delivery, improvement in the SA Police Service and ICD. Banking councils are involved in projects related to violent crimes against the banking industry, including cash-in-transit robberies, robberies and thefts at ATMs, white-collar crimes and so on.
My area of concern is co-ordination, which needs to be strengthened to avoid duplication of resources. The ANC supports the SAPS budget. [Applause.]
Ms A VAN WYK: Chairperson, the past year saw the focus in safety and security shifting towards a moratorium on crime statistics as imposed. We welcome the lifting of the moratorium and express the hope that South Africa will never again have to experience a blackout of information by a Government which is supposed to be transparent. It is reminiscent of the apartheid era’s state of emergency and control of the media. It does not become a democratic Government.
An essential statistic that still remains is the question of what the ideal staff component of the SAPS should be. This needs to be answered unequivocally and then everything possible should be done to achieve that figure. It is estimated that crime costs R30 billion per year. This is money that we do not have in the light of other glaring priorities.
Last year during the budget debate, the UDM asked for a differentiation between the salaries of SAPS members and those of the rest of the Public Service in what we believed was a long and hard battle with the national Treasury. The Minister of Safety and Security did succeed in achieving that. We congratulate him on this.
What remains to be implemented is a new promotional scheme for members of the SAPS. Human resources management should be able to devise and implement a career development scheme that would allow members of the SAPS to be promoted without their hitting a ceiling and then their crime combating knowledge being lost to the private industry.
This budget reflects substantial increases where it matters the most. It will never be enough and there will always be arguments for more. We believe that it is a fair and just budget in a country with pressing priorities. It should impact positively on crime-fighting and crime- prevention programmes.
This budget requires from the men and women in blue, whether at command level or station level or in visible policing, commitment, will and responsibility. It requires the commitment to make do with the resources at their disposal, the will to make the difference, and the responsibility to return the trust and investment placed in them, so that where new vehicles are provided to stations, these are used to fight crime and not to drive home or do private business with. It demands of station commanders and their staff to be proud, to want to succeed, and to demonstrate that through making a difference through the actual affect of their work on crime prevention. There is a thin blue line between anarchy and us. We are proud of the men and women in blue and support them.
The UDM calls for an assessment tool that can measure the effect that the increase in the three major programmes on actual policing have on the policeable crimes. The UDM believes that such a measuring tool will enable the police management to determine the shortcomings within the human resources structures of the SAPS.
An alarming factor for the UDM is the interface between the Department of Safety and Security and the Department of Home Affairs. Following reports from both the Minister of Home Affairs and the DG that systems of the department will collapse this financial year, the UDM is concerned about the effects of this on the department, and whether this budget makes provision for such an event.
The movement control system is used by the SAPS in controlling wanted criminals and ensuring that they do not cross our borders, and this comes to mind. Failure of this system will negatively influence our international agreements and co-operation with Interpol. The firearms legislation also requires close co-operation between the Department of Home Affairs and the SAPS. It is not clear from this budget that funds are available for emergency measures that might be necessary to implement.
I would also like to concentrate on the issue of policing priorities, and, more specifically, that of gangsterism, and we welcome the announcement made by the Minister this afternoon. This phenomenon is affecting a significant sector of our society. It occurs where dysfunctional families exist, where there is a high school dropout level, where unemployment, especially amongst the youth, is high, and where there is easy access to alcohol and drugs. It is evident that in the absence of a clear identity and functional communities, gangs become the primary means of building identity and creating a sense of belonging.
It is obvious from the activities that gangs involve themselves in that their criminal activities are policeable activities. These include mugging, housebreaking, robbery, murder, assault, rape and dealing in drugs.
To deal with gangs effectively, a multidisciplinary approach is needed. In gang-infested areas, the focus should be on poverty alleviation, job creation for the youth and recreational activities geared towards the improvement of communal living.
Currently, the police are only able to deal with the issue reactively, after the members of a gang have committed a crime. To deal with the issue proactively, a range of other stakeholders need to be brought on board.
These, first and foremost, include the community and community leaders where the gangs house themselves. Local government, the Departments of Social Development, Public Works, Education, Health and Sport and Recreation are but a few that should be drawn into the process.
In the Western Cape, it was reported that more than 130 people died since 3 January 2001 in gang-related incidents. In 1998, only 50 people reportedly died in gang-related violence throughout the country. In the first five months of this year, this figure has doubled in the Western Cape alone. If we consider this figure in terms of the size of the communities where incidents occur, then the seriousness of this matter is amplified even further.
It is estimated that between 80 000 and 100 000 people in the Western Cape belong to gangs, and that 70% of all crimes committed in the Western Cape is gang-related. Juveniles between the ages of 11 and 15 are increasingly committing gang-related crimes and are used as assassins against rival gangs, because they will be treated as juvenile offenders.
Successes in dealing with urban terror should be acknowledged and, by the look of it, the problem in the Western Cape has been brought under control. However, this is in the cases of high-profile city attacks. In answer to a question put to the Minister, the following information was revealed regarding the number of acts of urban terror and bombings that took place since 1998 up to the date of the moratorium.
In 1998, there were 154 attacks, 73 injuries, 49 deaths, 21 arrests, five convictions and only four sentences handed down. In 1999, there were 58 attacks, 127 injuries, 20 deaths, 29 arrests, four convictions and three sentences handed down. We are aware of approximately eight of these attacks. These would include the Planet Hollywood bomb, St Elmo’s, Cape Town International Airport and a few others. The rest we do not know of.
These urban terrors in Cape Town city centre, Newlands, Sea Point and Camps Bay might have been brought under control, but the continuous attacks in other areas of Cape Town are spiralling out of control. A sector of our society is under siege and the majority of the attacks not reported are taking place in Grassy Park, Athlone, Mitchells Plain, Salt River and Manenberg.
If we support the principle of not having second-class citizens in South Africa, then we need to receive an answer to why these communities are not enjoying or receiving the same attention as those in the more affluent areas of Cape Town.
We will support the budget. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Mr Chairperson and hon members, I am bewildered by the fact that the Minister did not complete his speech, and I was informed that there was a limit of 20 minutes, or something like that, for the delivery of speeches on the budget. This is quite unfortunate, in my view. I do not know when this rule was introduced, but I do say that it does rob the House of important information, even if the Minister may subsequently complete his speech when he replies.
I must say that I am getting concerned about the level and quality of our debates in this House. It is quite a worry, because as the level drops, we become incoherent and it becomes difficult for anyone to follow the arguments.
I want to quote the great economist Lord Keynes, who said: ``Wanton incoherent assertion has been the privilege of the harlot throughout the ages.’’ However, I really feel that especially personal references and attacks are detracting from our democracy.
I recall that during the fight against apartheid our leaders never made personal attacks against those who were in power at the time. [Applause.] I simply do not recall, over a period of 50 years, attacks on Dr Malan, Dr Verwoerd, Mr Vorster or Mr Strijdom.
I do not recall that there were attempts at personal denigration of those leaders. I just do not recall it. Despite the fact that we may have criticised, very viciously, their actions and policies, I do not recall us descending to the level of personal denigration of leaders such as we have seen, for example, in relation to even such an important person as the President of the country.
I am wondering why this is the case. Then of course, one recalls that we were subjected to a lot of attacks, and over a period of - let us take the period of the oldest political organisation - 90 years. There was a consistent policy of attacks of an unfortunate nature which, fortunately, we did not imitate. We thought we should not do that, and we never did.
Therefore, I want to say that in the House as well, we should endeavour to present our arguments - I thought the previous debate was fairly well- argued, the debate on the Speaker, but what has been happening now in the Safety and Security Vote, I think is very unfortunate.
Of course, people always forget that when one gets rid of one person, one can get someone who is worse. [Laughter.] I was in Singapore when the news of the overthrow of Mr Milton Obote was reported, during the Commonwealth conference, in 1971. Hon members should see where I have been travelling. When that announcement was made, there was a lot of celebration among the people sitting in front of me, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and his delegation, and, of course, we got Idi Amin, [Laughter.] The massacres occurred thereafter, and so it did not benefit anybody to gloat at the fall of Obote.
I believe, quite sincerely, that if one looks at the issue of crime as such, this Minister is doing very well [Applause.] Of course, there are lots of things that one can complain about, but then one must look at the substance of the issue: the issue of crime, the morale of the police and so on. I believe that he has made a great deal of progress and it will be a pity if what I call the ``encrustations’’ of the thief diverted us from the merits of the Minister in organising the fight against crime.
People think, and I have heard it said, that the criminals would rejoice the day they hear that Tshwete is no longer Minister of Safety and Security. All over the shebeens they will drink champagne. When we look at the fact that we have accommodation for 99 000 prisoners in our country and we have 170 000 prisoners behind bars right now, can we still say that nothing is happening?
Where are all those people who weekly robbed banks? Where are all the people who have been terrorising everybody, especially in the townships? Operation Crackdown has dealt a blow to many of those and they have left those areas. It is true they are now operating elsewhere. They are looking for soft targets in the farming areas and with burglaries. They have run away from the big, glamorous cash heists which everybody used to talk about. They were being killed left and right when they attempted those robberies against the financial institutions.
I do not think that the situation is one in which we should only see the negatives, though the negatives are bad enough. Of course, one can find plenty to say about crime in our country, because the situation is bad enough. I only worry that if we had not dealt with it in a particular way, it would have been worse.
I have been following the general elections in Britain and one of the biggest issues was crime. This may come as a surprise to some that there is a crime wave there, especially in the metropolitan area in London. They were supposed to have Scotland Yard and the best police in the world. There we are. Those who have been talking tough and saying the British government or the Labour Party is soft on crime, will see what the results are at the end, starting from ten o’clock tonight, to see whether the people believed what they said. It will be interesting to see what the British people think about the concentrated attacks on the government and its handling of the crime issue.
Of course, we had a similar experience, despite my warnings during the last election that nobody could benefit from the crime issue in this country. What happened was that the Government party increased its majority. [Applause.] The lesson of that is really that it is an issue involving everybody, including former commissioners of police. They are not exempted from being victims of crime. We are all equal now and therefore we need an equal effort from everybody to try to fight this evil. I hope that the Minister will be able to complete his speech, because it contains some important features. I ask the House to support the Vote.
Ms M M SOTYU: Chairperson, members of Parliament, members of the SAPS …
… Mhlalingaphambili, andisokuze ndime apha ke mna ndixelele uMphathiswa woKhuselo noKhuseleko into yokuba kufuneka umsebenzi wakhe awenze njani na. Ndiza kuma apha ndize kuthetha ngolwaphulo-mthetho olongamele uMzantsi Afrika. (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[… Chairperson, I will not stand here and tell the Minister of Safety and Security how he should do his work. I will stand up here and talk about crime that has engulfed South Africa.]
Violence against women and children is a gross violation of human rights. The ANC welcomes the increased budget for members of Parliament - in fact for SAPS members - for 2001-02. [Laughter.]
Ndiyingxamele makhosikazi, niyayibona na loo nto? Ndilambile. [I am in hurry, fellow South African women; can you see that? I am hungry for it.]
The ANC-led Government has committed itself to the eradication of any form of violence against women and children. The numbers of incidents of domestic violence in which women, children and the elderly are victims appear to be continually on the increase in South Africa. This kind of crime is listed as one of the policing priorities of the SAPS.
The department has initiated an expensive police training programme to facilitate the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act which came into effect in December 1999. The Act also requires police to offer a service to victims of domestic violence, including protection and transport to places of safety.
The ANC-led Government would like to see rural police stations transformed into people-service institutions. Victims of domestic violence are not yet served in the way that we expected. We want to see the conditions of our police stations in rural areas improved to cater for victims of domestic violence and battered women.
Siyabulela kuMphathiswa ngenkqubela-phambili kwezinye zezitishi zamapolisa. Kaloku, ngaye lo chatha simphiweyo apha kweli Sebe loKhuselo noKhuseleko sithanda ukubona iimeko zezitishi zasemaphandleni ziphuculwa ukuze zibe kumgangatho oncumisayo, kwandiswe neenqwelo zamapolisa ukuncedisana nokuthuthwa kwamaxhoba esiya kwiindawo zokhuseleko. (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.) [We would like to thank the Minister for the progress we see at some police stations. We in the Department of Safety and Security would like to see conditions of police stations in our rural areas developed, and the number of vehicles increased so as to cope with the numbers of victims that would need to be taken to places of safety.]
Crime knows no colour. In order for us to eliminate this sickness, we need to unite in action against this crime.
Siyazibona iinzame ezenziwa liSebe lakhe zokufikelela nakwezona ndawo zazilityelwe mandulo phaya. Ndiza kuzama ukukhankanya ezinye zezitishi esakhe safika kuzo ezifana neziya zaphaya eFree State, eBotshabelo, eKagisanong naseBatho.
Siyavuma ukuba uyazama kodwa, ngathi ubucothara uMhlekazi. Masibhinqeleni phezulu ukwenzela ukuba amarhamncwa la angayi kugaya iivoti kuthi phaya ezantsi kubahlali. Kaloku le nkqubela-phambili siyenzayo abayiboni, bayibona ngeliso elineenyembezi. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[We can see his department’s efforts, trying to reach out to those places that were forgotten in the past. I will mention a few like those in the Free State, Botshabelo, Kagisanong and Batho.
We do acknowledge these efforts but the process seems slow. Let us pull our socks up and try to expedite the process so that the enemies would not get a chance to campaign. People at grass-roots level complain that they cannot clearly see the development we bring about, because by the time it takes place they have lost faith in us.]
Police need to be trained to deal with this kind of crime in order to ensure that they are able to make informed decisions that best protect victims of abuse.
Furthermore, the department’s intersectoral approach adopted to combat crime against women and children foresees the implementation of crisis and trauma centres and awareness programmes, and the strengthening of units to deal with family violence, childcare and sexual abuse.
We welcome the special programmes which are already in place for the training of female members to deal with domestic violence for example, the one in Thohoyandou in the Northern Province.
Mhlalingaphambili, ndithanda ukukhe ndigxininise komnye umkhwa okhoyo, wokuthi xa siwusebenzisa uMthetho wobuNdlobongela baseKhaya siwusebenzise ngendlela engeyiyo. Umthetho omalunga nobundlobongela basekhaya awuthi makukhuselwe kuphela amalungelo abafazi nabantwana. Kuthiwa amalungelo omntu wonke kufuneka ekhuselwe ngulo mthetho, namalungelo abantu abangootata kuba … (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[Chairperson, I would like to speak about the habit of applying the Act about domestic violence in the wrong circumstances. The Act does not say that only women’s and children’s rights should be protected. It says that everybody’s rights should be protected, men’s included …]
… we do get abusive women among ourselves …
… kuba sithanda ukuthi xa siwutolika lo mthetho wobundlobongela basekhaya siwutolike bugwenxa. [… we have a habit of interpreting this Act wrongly.]
The Bill of Rights contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of South Africa of 1996 entrenches the right of every person to equality, freedom and security.
Masiyeke ukusebenzisa abantwana bethu njengoonozakuzaku bokuhambisa iziyobisi. Abazali mabayeke ukurhweba ngabantwana, ngakumbi abantwana abangamantombazana. Umzali akubona umntwana oyintombazana efika endlwini ephethe imali, makambuze ukuba uyithabatha phi na le mali, angasuki nje azithulele. (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[Let us stop using our children in our drug-selling activities. Parents must stop trading with their daughters. When parents see that their daughters come home with lots of money, they should ask them about it, and not just keep quiet.]
Members of the SAPS are faced with an extremely difficult task in that they are exposed to a high incidence of these kinds of crime. These include rape and sexual harassment. Fathers rape their wives and children and it is also reported that in some schools teachers rape learners. This promotes a high level of HIV and Aids infections. Special efforts are needed to ensure improved collaboration between all role-players involved in combating domestic violence.
Let us commend the police for their effort in fighting this evil monster under difficult circumstances. The Family and Child Protection Unit confiscated and seized a huge amount of child pornography. A number of cases have led to 61 life sentences between 1999 and 2000.
It is widely welcomed that the SAPS has put in place a new domestic violence coding system that will for the first time provide accurate statistics on recorded cases. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Rev K R J MESHOE: Chairperson, on Wednesday 22 May 1996, the National Crime Prevention Strategy document was launched by the then Deputy President and now our President, Mr Thabo Mbeki. The interdepartmental strategy team that compiled that document highlighted what they called the roots of the current crime situation. The first root that they identified was the breaking down of the family and traditional communities.
The budget before us today does not address this root of our current crime situation. There are currently some police officers who are being investigated for crimes they have committed, including raping young girls. There are also women who have laid charges against the police for raping them in police stations when they go there for help. If women and young girls cannot turn to the police for help when they are molested and abused, where must they turn? It seems crimes committed by some members of the police are becoming more serious in nature. A very strong message must be sent out that corruption and all forms of criminal activity will not be tolerated, especially in the department that is responsible for maintaining law and order in the country.
The hon the Minister must ensure that the public do not lose their confidence in the police because of their carelessness and irresponsible actions. Members of the community are always asked to come forward, report crime and work with the police. This will not be possible without our communities trusting the police.
The police must be seen to be working for the community and not against the community. That is why the ACDP appeals to the hon the Minister to ensure that all members of the SA Police Services clean up their act and start serving their communities with diligence, discipline and empathy.
The second root of the current crime situation identified in the NCPS document is what they call insufficient and ill-equipped police personnel. The recruitment of more police only will not solve our crime problem in this country. What is the use of having more police who are afraid of criminals who seem to be better armed than they are? We used to have many satellite police stations in our townships to make them more accessible to members of the public. Many of these satellite stations, such as those on the East Rand, have been shut down because we were told that it was dangerous for police officers to remain there. They were being attacked by criminals.
I want to suggest that the killing of police officers should not only be highlighted by the news media, as was suggested by the hon Mluleki George, but it must be a very serious criminal offence punishable by death. If police personnel are withdrawn from so-called dangerous areas, then who will protect the innocent law-abiding citizens? It is in fact despicable that our police, who are supposed to protect people against crime, are the ones committing the crimes or withdrawing their presence from known dangerous areas.
Will the hon the Minister please tell us if there are plans to open new satellite police stations, especially in areas like the Cape Flats where gangsterism is disrupting normal schooling and causing innocent people to live in fear? Gangsterism must be obliterated. The law to make membership of a gang illegal is long overdue. I will welcome the Minister’s indication that such a law is going to be passed, because the suffering caused by gangsterism, especially in this province, is too much.
What the ACDP has been calling for is not only better paid and better qualified police personnel, but a tougher stance against criminals. For as long as criminals do not fear punishment, Government will not win its fight against crime. Criminals must fear the arm of the law. They must be taught that crime does not pay.
In conclusion, we applaud all efforts used to rid our Police Service of fraudulent and criminal cops. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon members, in that area there and around here, you are conversing so loudly that I can hear your conversation over here. May I please appeal to you to lower your voices in order that the person at the podium may be heard.
Mr G P MNGOMEZULU: Chairperson, allow me to share with this august House a poem entitled ``Another Woman’’ by Carol Geneya Kaplan:
Today another woman died and not on a foreign field … She died without CNN covering her war. She died without talk of intelligent bombs and strategic targets. The target was simply her face, her back and her pregnant belly. The target was this life that had been loved and not loved … A life like yours or mine that had stumbled up from a beginning and had learned to walk and had learned to read, and had learned to sing. Another woman died today, not far from where you live; Just there, next door where the tall light falls across the pavement. Just there, a few steps away where you’ve often heard shouting, Another woman died today …
And someone has confused his rage with this woman’s only life.
What this poem illustrates to us is that domestic violence involves a batterer and a victim. It further indicates that domestic violence is aggression with the purpose of controlling, intimidating and subjugating one’s partner. It shows that domestic violence, wherever it is practised, is done with the intention to establish and maintain power and control over one’s spouse.
Arguments, anger, conflicts and misunderstandings have featured in all relationships at one time or another, but they do not automatically suggest that the relationship is an abusive one. A relationship only becomes abusive when the behaviour assumes a violent form. For instance, drugs and alcohol can aggravate violent behaviour, but is in no way the cause of domestic violence. This is because many violent men, and some women, abuse their partners and children regardless of whether they are intoxicated or not.
Femicide, which is murder specifically targeted at women, is in the main carried out by men. There is also what we call intimate femicide, in which one finds that a man who has killed or murdered his partner will also kill his children and/or members of his partner’s family and even the man suspected of having an affair with his partner.
As the ANC Government, we have gone a long way in addressing this unacceptable behaviour by most men and women in our society. As a signatory to the UN Convention on the Elimination of Violence against Women, which states, inter alia, that all signatories to this convention should provide effective legal measures to protect women against violence, our Government implemented the following. Firstly, we launched the National Action Plan for the Protection of Human Rights in 1998; secondly, we passed the Domestic Violence Act; and thirdly, we also passed the Maintenance Act and the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act. All these Acts are beginning to make a significant impact on our communities.
We want to call upon all hon members, our fathers, brothers, uncles and grandfathers to take a strong stance in exposing those men who are abusing their families and condemning them in the strongest possible terms. We also wish to appeal to Government to include gender violence prevention programmes in our school curriculum.
Lastly, let me also take this opportunity to express our gratitude to our police officers, who are often the first point of contact with women who are being abused, for the sterling work that they are doing. To them we are saying, keep it up, and we are there to assist them through our community police forums. [Applause.]
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Mnr die Voorsitter, die agb Minister kom vanmiddag sê, onder meer, dat daar strenger beheer van onwettige wapens moet plaasvind. Die VF stem saam met die agb Minister dat daar strenger beheer oor onwettige wapens moet wees. Maar die VF vra ook aan die agb Minister: Is daar beheer oor vuurwapens in die SAPD? As ons gaan kyk, dan sien ons dat daar in 1999, 1 427 vuurwapens verlore geraak het of gesteel is in die departement. Verlede jaar is 1 697 vuurwapens verlore of gesteel. Dit is 270 meer vuurwapens as die vorige jaar, 1999. Ek wil vir die agb Minister sê, dit is 1 697 onwettige vuurwapens wat nou in omloop is, want hulle het verlore geraak of is gesteel. Die agb Minister en die departement moet die voorbeeld stel, want dit is ‘n bedrag van R3,9 miljoen ten koste van die belastingbetaler.
‘n Ander aspek waaroor ek wil praat, is onregmatige arrestasies. Meer en meer moet ‘n mens in die media lees van lede van die publiek wat onregmatig gearresteer word. Onlangs moes ‘n mens lees dat selfs ‘n swanger vrou gearresteer is omdat sy kwansuis nie haar verkeersboete betaal het nie - en dit terwyl sy wel die boete betaal het en selfs ‘n kwitansie aan die lede van die polisie getoon het. Die polisielede het hulle eenvoudig net nie daaraan gesteur nie. Hulle het haar geïntimideer en so getraumatiseer dat sy ‘n dreigende miskraam het. Dit is die gevolg van ‘n onregmatige arrestasie.
‘n Mens moet gereeld lees van blanke boere wat op vals klagtes op Vrydae gearresteer word en die naweek in die polisieselle moet deurbring. Gereeld moet ‘n mens lees van polisiebeamptes wat gemagtig is om borg vir hierdie lede te gee, maar net eenvoudig weier, sodat die landdros Maandag moet vra hoekom die betrokke polisie-offisier wat daar was, nie borg gegee het nie. Daar kan met reg gevra word: is die SAPD daar om die lede van die publiek te beskerm of om hulle te intimideer? Hierdie onregmatige arrestasies word weerspieël as gekyk word na die toename in regskostes van die departement. In 1999 was die regskoste, wat siviele eise insluit, R27,8 miljoen. Verlede jaar, in 2000, het die regskoste tot R53,8 miljoen gestyg, ‘n toename van R26 miljoen, wat siviele eise insluit.
Die ergste is die groot aantal onregmatige inhegtenisnemings deur talle lede van die polisie. Die publiek tree tereg na vore en vra vrae. Om ‘n swanger vrou in hegtenis te neem vir ‘n sogenaamde verkeersboete word twee tot drie voertuie met vier tot vyf lede van die polisie gebruik. By ander geleenthede, in die geval van ‘n navraag en wanneer die polisie gevra word om uit te kom, sê hulle eenvoudig daar is nie genoeg mannekrag en voertuie beskikbaar nie.
Die vraag is: Watter voorbeeld stel die agb Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit? As Minister is hy die hoogste gesag wat die belastingbetaler se geld verteenwoordig. Dié agb Minister reageer op ongetoetste getuienis. Hy beskuldig lede van die publiek in die openbaar asof hulle deel van ‘n komplot is. As dié agb Minister in die Parlement aangespreek word, word daar vir die opposisie gesê hulle moet nie persoonlik raak nie, want dit pas nie by politici nie.
As die agb Minister egter persoonlik raak en persoonlike aanvalle doen op lede van die publiek, maak dit nie saak nie. ‘n Bewys daarvan is dat die agb President die Minister gerepudieer het. Hy het vir hom gesê dat hy nie die name van lede van die publiek moes genoem het nie.
Die agb Minister stel ‘n swak voorbeeld vir die departement deur stellings te maak op ongetoetse getuienis én daarop te reageer. Dit is daarom geen wonder daar is soveel onregmatige inhegtenisnemings nie. Die VF sê daarom die agb Minister behoort die eerbare weg te volg en te bedank. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister said here this afternoon, inter alia, that there should be stricter control of illegal firearms. The FF agrees with the hon the Minister that there should be stricter control of illegal firearms. But the FF also wants to ask the hon the Minister: Is there control over firearms in the SAPS?
When we look at this, we see that in 1999, 1 427 firearms were lost or stolen in the department. Last year 1 697 firearms were lost or stolen. This is 270 more firearms than the previous year, 1999. I want to tell the hon the Minister that that makes it 1 697 illegal firearms that are now in circulation because they were lost or stolen. The hon the Minister and the department should set an example, because this represents an amount of R3,9 million at the expense of the taxpayer.
Another aspect that I want to talk about is unlawful arrests. One reads more and more in the media about members of the public who are arrested unlawfully. Recently one even read that a pregnant woman was arrested because she had ostensibly failed to pay a traffic fine - and that while she had paid the fine and even showed the members of the police a receipt to that effect. The members of the police simply ignored it. They intimidated her and traumatised her to such a degree that she almost suffered a miscarriage. This is the result of an unlawful arrest.
One reads regularly about white farmers who are arrested on false charges on a Friday and then have to spend the weekend in jail. One reads regularly about police officers who are authorised to grant these members of the public bail, but simply refuse to do so, so that the magistrate has to ask on Monday why the relevant police officer had not granted bail. One may quite rightly ask: Is the SAPS there to protect members of the public or to intimidate them?
These unlawful arrests are reflected in the increase in the legal costs of the department. In 1999 the legal costs, which includes civil claims, amounted to R27,8 million. Last year, in 2000, the legal costs increased to R53,8 million, an increase of R26 million, which includes civil claims.
The worst is the large number of unlawful arrests by many members of the police. The public, justifiably, is stepping forward and asking questions. To arrest a pregnant woman for a so-called traffic fine, two to three vehicles, with four to five members of the police, are used. On other occasions, in the case of an enquiry, when the police are asked to come out, they simply say that insufficient manpower and vehicles are available.
The question is: What example does the hon the Minister of Safety and Security set? As Minister he is the highest authority representing the taxpayer’s money. This hon Minister reacts to unproven evidence. He accuses members of the public in public, of being part of a conspiracy. When this hon Minister is reprimanded in Parliament the opposition is told not to become personal, because it is not appropriate for politicians to do so.
When the hon the Minister becomes personal, however, and makes personal attacks on members of the public, it does not matter. Proof of this is that the hon President repudiated the Minister. He told him that he should not have mentioned the names of members of the public.
The hon the Minister is setting a poor example to the department when he makes statements on the basis of unproven evidence and reacts to it. It is therefore no wonder that there are so many unlawful arrests. That is why the FF says that the hon the Minister should take the honourable course of action and resign.]
Rre Q J KGAUWE: Mannasetilo, go a swabisa gore ka nako nngwe fa e le makgoa a tshwarwang le go tswalelwa mo mafelong a beke, go bo gotwe ba bulelwe ba sa ya kgotlatshekelong. Fa e le batho ba bantsho, go didimalwa fela. Go a a makatsa gore goreng re tshwanetse go buelela makgoa ka metlha. Ga ke itse gore re tla golola leng naga ya rona gore dipuo tse di ntseng jaana di fele. Mo nakong e e fetileng, go ne go tshwara bantsho fela, jaanong ka gore bantsho ba kgona go tshwara makgoa, a na le tshwanelo ya go ngongorega. (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
[Mr Q J KGAUWE: Chairperson, it is so sad when white people are arrested, and released over weekends without going to court. When this happens to black people nothing is said about it. It is really surprising that we always have to protect white people only. I do not know when we will liberate our country from such things.
In the past, only black people were arrested. Now that black people can arrest whites, they have the right to appeal.]
Resources will be made available to the police because of their ability to execute their work properly. During a budget presentation to the committee, their union representatives were quite happy about the improvement of their salaries. A total of 78% of their budget is spent on personnel.
It is regrettable that, for the past six years, the SAPS had no transformation policy. The report of the Auditor-General can confirm that. Now there seems to be some movement. It was agreed that all functionally trained policemen should be redeployed, for administrative reasons, to perform police duties.
A total of 28 148 functional members are awaiting redeployment. The department intends to do it in phases of 5 000 per annum over a period of five years. Admittedly, this process is very slow. At head office more than 1 000 staff members were not replaced.
Near Potchefstroom a white farmer obtained a court order to evict his black tenants. This falls under the provincial head office of Commissioner Lesetja Beetha. Police rushed to evict the tenants from the farm and left them at the roadside. Another court interdict against the eviction was sought and obtained, instructing the farmer to allow the tenants safe return to their original place of residence. The police refused to implement the High Court order and the evicted families reside alongside the road to this day.
In Klerksdorp the station commissioner is an Indian African. It has taken almost two years to get a replacement. All other units are still being run by white persons. Sometimes it is difficult for them to adapt to transformation, including the crime intelligence and gathering unit. The department has embarked on a process of teaching police officers how to drive. This exercise is funded by the department and members are encouraged to undergo such training. In the end we will be able to do away with the notion that there are no bakkies, or transport, to attend to a crime scene.
With regard to illiteracy within the SAPS, it is regretful, but the situation is being addressed. When one echoes promotion and transformation, somebody will respond by saying: yes, but your members are not educated. This is an obstacle. All those members who are disadvantaged were all recruited by the DA and apartheid regime. They were misused before, and some were forced to commit atrocities. The beneficiaries were the white men, the DP and the New NP.
The ANC Government has assured and embraced them with full confidence, and has taken them on board. We will enable them to succeed, because they are our brothers and sisters and we value their contributions.
Concerning the farm killings, that is highly regrettable, and we will condemn every killing. We must investigate and establish the motive behind these killings, so that we can be at peace with our neighbours. Then we will be able to ask whether what was said was the truth. We must create a conducive climate between a farm owner and the farmworkers.
Innocent people are being killed with unlicensed firearms. The ANC Government has transformed that firearm unit. We are able to report that 10 000 firearms were registered in the names of deceased persons. Further investigations revealed that 44 000 firearms were still in the hands of aged people, and that 24 000 owners were deceased. Different departments are unable to account for 68 000 firearms. This is a great stride forward that one can be proud of and one can expect more miracles.
With regard to the culture of the human rights, it is clear that it has to be entrenched into mind-sets. So, 19 000 police officers were trained in human rights practices. We appreciate the exercise embarked upon by our members. This will enable them to be reckoned with through the good practice which will enable them to perform along a well dignified career path. We would also be able to hold them accountable. [Applause.]
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, we welcome the lifting of the ban on the release of crime statistics by the Minister of Safety and Security. However, the reasons as to why the moratorium on the release of crime statistics was imposed by the Government in the first place remain unclear and highly political.
What is certain is that the decision that inspired the ban was purely political, as opposed to for scientific reasons, as advanced by the Minister that the crime statistics gathered before 1994 was not reliable. The reality is that the whole exercise was aimed at appeasing those who are affected by crime, by creating the impression and perception that crime is under control.
Circumstances surrounding the alleged plot on the life of the President and the manner that it was publicly handled, clearly show that it was a well- planned strategy to potential contenders to the throne of the ANC. What is of major concern to us is the fact that different state security agencies were mobilised to investigate the alleged plot.
We hope that the Minister of Safety and Security, as a leader in these investigations, will soon make his formal findings public and justify the use of the taxpayer’s money by demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that his investigations had nothing to do with internal party squabbles.
When the Independent Complaints Directorate was initiated it was with a clear mandate: to investigate any form of complaints lodged against the members of SAPS by members of the public, especially the abuse of state powers in relation to their work.
With the dawn of democracy the role of the SA Police Service had to change, and indeed the method of policing also had to change. The police force had to operate within the parameters of the Constitution. [Time expired.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, please lower your voices, especially in that area there. [Interjections.] It is drifting through right to here. [Interjections.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairman, the PAC wishes to express appreciation to the SAPS for the hard work they are doing to combat crime under difficult conditions. The PAC is satisfied that the budget allocated to the Ministry of Safety and Security, if properly managed, could go a long way towards bringing the scourge of crime in our country under control. The unbanning of long-suppressed reports on crime statistics, called a moratorium, showed that this Government has failed to deal with the cancer of crime. Crime ranges from murder to rape, motor vehicle hijacking, killing of farmers or police, or farmworkers …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Mr Smit, you are loud enough for me to hear you. Please lower your voice.
Dr S E M PHEKO: I do not think that crime in South Africa can be compared with recent racial riots in Britain. I think we will be making a big mistake if we are going to compare crime in this country with that in countries like Britain. We have to be realistic. [Interjections.]
More drastic steps must be taken against crime. Crime impedes the economy of our country. It contributes to poverty and scares off foreign investors. Even ambassadors in our country worry about their security and that of their families and property. This tarnishes the image of this country internationally. The country needs a well-trained, professional police force, well-screened, to prevent undesirable criminal elements becoming members of this important institution.
Police stations must be well-equipped, with working telephones and enough police vehicles. The conditions of service for the police must be attractive and their salaries improved more than those of members of Parliament. There are police stations where police cannot even get police uniforms. A demoralised police service will never bring crime under control.
The PAC has pointed out several times that crime is a dangerous snake. It does not need kisses, it needs hard kicks. [Laughter.] There must also be a national campaign to teach communities that they have a role to play in the eradication of crime in the country. They should expose criminals and not welcome them as heroes. Crime in this country seems to be a chronic disease, and seems beyond police capability.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Your time has expired. Hon members, also of the New NP, lower your voices, please.
Mr M S BOOI: Chairperson, Minister and members of Parliament, I am definitely sure you are wondering why Van Schalkwyk is not in the House at this moment.
An HON MEMBER: Hon Van Schalkwyk.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Yes, hon Van Schalkwyk. Mr M S BOOI: Chairperson, all right hon Van Schalkwyk. The problem is that he definitely knows that he has not said much. He does not understand what he has spoken about. His role, at this particular moment, continues to diminish, because his party has problems, and he himself, as a member, also. We have known him as a Sayco, or SA Youth Congress, member. He has never been able to play a significant role amongst young people. He is supposed to be leading, and he has not been able to.
That is why, rather than dealing with the issues pertaining to crime, he changes the debate about matters relating to the police to one about the Minister. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Why do you not deal with those issues?
Mr M S BOOI: I am getting to that issue. I am definitely getting to it. [Interjections.] The issue that makes them panic and makes them continue losing direction is that when we, as the ANC, said that they should govern in the Western Cape, we were very clear as to why we said that. We said to them that they should attend to the affairs relating to the unicity. They gave Mr Peter Marais the powers. The ANC knew what it was doing.
Today Mr Hennie Bester cannot solve the problem of gangsterism. He is stuck with that problem. He knows that it is his problem. They definitely know that they are stuck with that problem in this particular province. They know that they cannot solve it. The ANC has been very clear on its policy arrangements. The ANC says they should involve the communities where they are. The problem that they have is that they do not even involve the community of Mitchells Plain. They do not know what they are doing.
Mr Hennie Bester plays to the TV more than doing the work he is supposed to be doing. Mr Peter Marais does not know what he is doing. He went to Khayelitsha to open a pool. The people there did not even know who he was, and asked who he was. The ANC councillors had to begin to take up the issue to help Mr Peter Marais in that particular situation. I am consistently saying that the DA knows that it is confronted with the situation that in 2004 they themselves will have to admit that they cannot govern in this particular province.
They have failed the people of the province. They have made promises before they came to power, ie they continuously said that they were going to beat the gangsters. Sixteen-year-old kids and four-year-old kids are dying. What is Hennie Bester doing? People are being attacked on the freeway. What is Hennie Bester doing? He is doing nothing. They are making a noise. That is why they are sitting with this problem.
Their own Leader of the Opposition comes here to make a noise about the Minister. I am looking at his performance in the province. He is not performing. That is the problem they are sitting with here.
Tony Leon goes to Britain because he cannot get the publicity he is looking for. He goes about … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! It is ``the hon Tony Leon’’.
Mr M S BOOI: Oh, I see. Hon Tony Leon, I even forget him. The point I am making is that his performance has been very bad. He goes to Britain and he realises that our performance in this country is better. He cannot even say anything about crime. He says that he accepts the leadership of President Mbeki and he has been able to see that Mr Mbeki is performing very well, things that he cannot even say in this House. So what I am saying is that there is a problem within the DP.
The hon Gaum comes here and makes a noise. I sit with him in a debate. I challenge him to explain himself when he says the Minister is involved in a plot. He sits there and reads the Sunday Times the whole day. The media left and when it had left he started complaining. He comes here and makes a noise in the House. I am challenging him and I have also been challenging him in the portfolio committee to express himself. He does not understand what he is talking about, challenging the Minister. He could not do it in the portfolio committee because he does not have an understanding of the issues that we are dealing with in Parliament.
Again, I am challenging Van Schalkwyk, the hon Van Schalkwyk, and I will continue challenging him, to come and debate the process that we are confronted with. I am saying to him: What are the issues that we have in the portfolio committee which we are able to present? In relation to stability, we have the portfolio committee.
I am saying to him that Khayelitsha and Mitchells Plain are areas covered in the Presidential Project. This is where we are supposed to be seeing the DA’s role. What can they do for the communities that are under attack? And what I am saying is that throughout that project Hennie Bester has not been seen. He takes 80 radios to go and dump in Mitchells Plain. He does not care about the community of Khayelitsha.
They are now telling me that they have an MEC that is responsible, that is able to take up the issues of crime. He is not doing that. That is why they come here and attack the Minister.
They are attacking the Minister because he is performing. He knows what he is doing. He has been able to turn around and reach the morale of the police. He has been able to deal with issues of absenteeism. If the hon member goes to Khayelitsha, where Shiburi is active as a director, where is the provincial commissioner. They should ask him what he is doing, and he knows the issues that are taking place in Khayelitsha. He came down, deployed by the national commissioner, and he was able to turn round crime in that particular area.
He has been able to interact with the community. He is the director that walks up and down in that particular community. As a result, today the community of Khayelitsha says that they are confident because there is somebody who is responsible, and that the Presidential project is going to be a success if it is implemented. But, the provincial government, under hon Morkel, is unable to perform. It is unable to go to Khayelitsha and bring the communities together and start delivering on the Presidential Project. That is the criticism that they are unable to take and put his party on track so as to be focused in order to develop our own communities.
These are the issues that the hon member is supposed to say, that the Minister, Mr Steve Tshwete, has not performed in respect of those issues. I am saying that hon Morkel in this province is not performing, and continues to take the direction of fighting amongst themselves rather than addressing the issues that they are confronted with.
That is why today, I hear Morkel is coming here to read the issue. I am saying that at no stage have they shown their performance record, and what has happened in Khayelitsha is, in turn, the situation in the Western Cape. What happens in Manenberg is that there is no interaction with the community there. When it is voting time, the NP and hon Tony Leon and his members start dancing in Manenberg.
The community is dying today, and nothing is being done by these hon members. Nothing is being done by the Democratic Alliance as far as going to that particular community is concerned. The Minister today outlined a strategy of how to combat gangsterism. Gangsterism has been around for more than 30 years when the hon member was in power under the apartheid regime. Now that they are in power, they are unable to resolve it. It is confronting them, but they are not even looking at it.
He should have watched SABC3 and seen how criminals conduct themselves in prison. They are unable to find places to sleep. Now the hon member says we must sort it out. How do we sort it out, because it is due to the hon member’s performance? What the hon member needs to do is to find out how to meet the social needs of our people. He needs to be able deliver bread to them and make sure Staggie does not hold the community at ransom.
Staggie is holding the community to ransom in Manenberg. The hon member is not doing anything, be it with Christianity, or delivering bread to those people. The hon member is not even making sure that they get their pensions without Staggie having a say over their lives. The hon member is a coward and afraid of Staggie.
The DA is able to go to him when they need him. They need him during voting time, because he is their voting cow. Now, we are looking at them, when are they going to make sure that Staggie stops gangsterism in this area? They are not doing anything with regard to that issue. The hon member comes here making a noise and starts shouting at the Minister. What is the hon member doing in the Western Cape? Nothing. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, hon Minister, and hon Deputy Minister, the main aim of the Department of Safety and Security is to prevent, combat and investigate crime as well as to maintain public order. The MF condones Vote 23: Safety and Security and Vote 21: Independent Complaints Directorate, which is also in keeping with the Security Industry Regulation Bill [B12 - 2001] as well as the strategic plan 2000-2003 which outlines the key activities of the SAPS for this period. The key activities that the SAPS is focusing on includes organised crime, serious and violent crime, crime against women and children, and improved service delivery at police stations. All the aforementioned criminal activities are negatively impounding on the economy of our country. The MF is appreciative of the increased allocation of 8,9% to the Vote. It is believed that the Government has reached its goal of reducing the amount of money spent on personnel, so that money can be spent on key inputs such as vehicles, fuel and oil and the renovation of physical assets. The MF approves of the Independent Complaints Directorate Vote, since it directly coincides with the Safety and Security Vote. The main aims of the ICD are twofold, namely to investigate complaints of misconduct and criminality committed in the police cells by some police and to propose reforms to reduce the incidence of behaviour that gives rise to complaints. The MF compliments the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) in its obligation to investigate all deaths in police custody, as there have been numerous such cases in KwaZulu-Natal. These incidents leave family members not only devastated, but also in a state of shock and disillusioned as to whom they can trust and consult when faced with a tragedy or problem.
The MF recommends that the budget allocation to the ICD be increased, since the amount allocated is not sufficient for them to continue with their current mandate and prioritisation. On the contrary, research has indicated that 70% of the budget for the ICD is allocated for personnel expenditure and only 30% is available for operational cost. The MF recommends that it is necessary to re-evaluate the amount spent on personnel expenditure in order to make more money available for running cost. This could be done by re-evaluating the job levels and needs of the ICD.
The MF welcomes the budget allowance for a special salary dispensation for SAPS members, as well as additional police personnel, since it is evident that their jobs are not only extremely demanding, but also very risky. It is also noteworthy that there is an increased amount of the budget that is allocated towards administration due to the increasing use of computers. This is compulsory in present society, as we are rapidly improving in the age of information technology. The MF is confident that the amount in the budget allocated towards programmes such as administration, the investigation of complaints and monitoring and development would prove to be fruitful in providing safety and security in our country. The MF supports both budgets. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, ‘n land kan die modernste Handves van Regte hê, maar as misdaad ongebreideld voortduur, soos in Suid-Afrika, sal niks tereg daarvan kom nie. Basiese regte, wat in die Grondwet verskans word, word deur misdaad in Suid-Afrika tot niet gemaak. Hierdie regte sluit in die reg op menswaardigheid, lewe, vryheid en sekerheid van persoon, privaatheid, beweging, omgewing en eiendom.
Ons Handves van Regte lê in skerwe voor die misdadigers van Suid-Afrika. Indien die staat dit nie in toom kan hou nie, staan hy skuldig teenoor die Grondwet en dit is presies wat vandag in Suid-Afrika gebeur. Verlede jaar het die agb Minister, in die debat oor hierdie begrotingspos, aangekondig misdaad word onder beheer gebring. Hy het kritici beskryf as ``prophets of doom’’. Misdaadstatistiek is uiteindelik onder groot druk vrygestel en die syfers toon daar was geen afname in misdaad nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, a country could have the most modern Bill of Rights, but if crime continues uncontrolled, as in South Africa, nothing will come of it. Basic rights, as entrenched in the Constitution, are reduced to nothing by crime in South Africa. These rights include the right to human dignity, life, freedom and security of the person, privacy, movement, environment and property.
Our Bill of Rights lies in tatters before the criminals of South Africa. If the state cannot control crime, it has transgressed the Constitution, and that is precisely what is happening in South Africa today. Last year the hon the Minister announced, in the debate on this Vote, that crime was being brought under control. He described critics as prophets of doom. Crime statistics were finally released, under great pressure, and the figures indicated that there was no decrease in crime.] Those prophets of doom have been justified again by the statistics of doom. If one take into consideration the vast increase in the private security business, the only justifiable conclusion is that the hon the Minister and his department have made even less impact on the criminals in South Africa than in the past.
The question is: What went wrong? If one looks at our overcrowded prisons and the backlog on the court rolls, one should conclude that our police have made more arrests, but the crime rate still has not come down. Therefore the crucial problem is clearly in the area of crime prevention. There is no better way of crime prevention than consistent, constantly visible policing.
I clearly get the impression that the emphasis lies too much on once-off hit-and-run squads and sporadically executed sweeping operations, instead of continuous day-to-day operating in a planned and systematic way. I am afraid the hon the Minister has failed South Africa in this regard. With great expectations the hon the Minister took command of this very difficult portfolio. He was, after all, known as Mr Fix It, as a strong man in the ranks of the ANC. Today there is widespread conviction that he is not the right jockey for this horse. The department needs a general, not a sergeant- major. We need a manager, not a loose-cannon cowboy. We can add to this the disastrous attacks on white women and the Portuguese community, as well as the handling of an imaginary conspiracy. Clearly, I must present the hon the Minister today with a CD, entitled ``Time to say goodbye’’. [Interjections.]
On the other hand, the hon the Minister is not the only one to be blamed. Yes, I know that more money alone cannot solve everything, but surely, if one looks at the vehicle situation, the personnel backlog and the infrastructure, it is clear that the increase of 8,1% in the budget is not sufficient and constitutes, in real terms, nothing more than 1,5%.
Dan is daar weer eens die kwessie van plaasmoorde. Die verslegtende situasie skrei ten hemele. [Then there is again the question of farm murders. This deteriorating situation cries to high heaven.]
It is reported on the Internet that 96 farmers were killed in 10 months, which is about 10 murders per month.
Hierdie misdaad het nou ‘n nuwe dimensie aangeneem. Ook die kinders van ons boere het nou die teiken geword van hierdie gruweldade. Besef die agb Minister hoe plofbaar hierdie situasie geword het? As kinders aangeval word, kan hierdie kruitvat ontplof. Dit is eenvoudig so. Dan verdwyn rasionaliteit, en rou emosie neem oor.
En wat doen die President as drie kinders wees gelaat word wanneer albei hulle ouers vermoor word? Hy waarsku die boere om nie reg in eie hande te neem nie. Waar is die boodskap aan die misdadigers? Hierdie eie reg gaan gebeur, dit is besig om te gebeur en dit is op die Minister se rekening.
Die Minister het ‘n taakspan aangestel om die oorsake van plaasmoorde te ondersoek. Dit lyk my die agb Adjunkminister van Landbou en Grondsake meen dit is nie nodig nie. Hy het klaar die antwoorde, want voor die boere op Brits reken hy dat hulle politiek wil maak van die situasie as hulle geopolitieke motiewe agter die plaasmoorde sien. Hy is nie nou hier nie, maar ek wil vir hom sê hy kan maar reguit praat met ons boere. Hulle verkies dit eerder as soetsappige stroperigheid, maar as hy mense wat by die oop graf van hulle dierbares gestaan het van kwaadwillige politiekery beskuldig, kom hy hulle ernstig te na.
Ek sluit af. As ons misdaad nie in toom kan hou nie, kan ons maar vergeet van ekonomiese groei, van die Afrika-renaissance, van vrede en voorspoed en van ‘n ``better life for all’’. Misdaad sal Suid-Afrika op sy knieë dwing. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[This crime has now taken on a new dimension. The children of our farmers have now also become the targets of these atrocities. Does the hon the Minister realise how explosive this situation has become? If children are attacked, this powder keg could explode. This is simply how it is. Then rationality disappears and raw emotion takes over.
What did the President do when three children were left orphaned after both their parents had been murdered? He warned farmers not to take the law into their own hands. Where is the message to the criminals? Taking the law into one’s own hands will happen, it is already happening, and this is for the Minister’s account.
The Minister has appointed a task team to investigate the causes of farm murders. It would seem to me that the hon the Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs is of the opinion that this is not necessary. He already has the answers, because in the presence of farmers in Brits he argued that they wanted to make a political issue of this situation if they saw any geopolitical motives behind the farm murders. He is not here now, but I would like to say to him that he can talk frankly to the farmers. They prefer that to mealy-mouthed sugar-coating, but if he is accusing people who have stood by the open graves of their loved ones of malicious politicking, he is doing them a serious injustice.
I conclude. If we cannot contain crime, we can forget about economic growth, about the African Renaissance, about peace and prosperity and about a better life for all. Crime will bring South Africa to its knees.]
Just allow me an apology to the House, and to the Minister, that I will not be able to stay for the rest of the debate and hear his reply due to time constraints. I have another appointment already. I apologise for that.
Ms D M MOROBI: Chairperson, Minister of Safety and Security Comrade Steve Tshwete, Deputy Minister of Safety and Security, before I start my speech, I would like to pose a question to people on the left side of the House. I just want to know whether they are South Africans. [Interjections.] If yes, I urge them to sensitise their sense of belonging. They do not have to come here and howl, when South Africans out there have put their trust in them to be their mouthpiece. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
The Independent Complaints Directorate was established in April 1977. Its aim is to investigate complaints of misconduct and criminality allegedly committed by members of the SA Police Service. Its vision, amongst other things, is to ensure transformation within the SAPS, and also to promote proper police conduct.
Under apartheid, the state maintained power and control over all aspects of daily life. The legacy of apartheid, although declining, has by no means disappeared. In the transition to democracy, South Africa needed to dismantle all legislation and repressive mechanisms of authority and social control, before building alternative mechanisms.
During this vacuum, lawless elements were able to flourish, resulting in the highest rate of police misconduct and brutality. The national priorities for 2000-2001 are as follows: death in police custody due to police actions; police corruption; focusing on destruction of police dockets and escape from custody; and police behaviour that is prohibited by police regulations, such as neglect of duty, or failure to comply with the code of conduct.
The ICD has the major task of investigating deaths in police custody, whether the death occurred as a result of police action or negligence. In the event of any evidence or suspicion of police criminality, the culprits should be brought to book. The ICD takes charge of investigations and, thereafter, hands the cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions with recommendations. It also monitors these processes.
The investigation framework for the conduct of these investigations of police brutality, misbehaviour, misconduct and negligence should also consider broadening concerns which are relevant to the prevention of all forms of misconduct and death in police custody. Priorities should also be given to develop strategies to reduce the risk of death in custody by police action, although most deaths are not due to police actions.
Chapter 10, section 50(4) of the SA Police Service Act, Act 68 of 1995 states, and I quote:
All organs of state shall accord such assistance as may be reasonably required for the protection of the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of the directorate in the exercise and performance of its powers and functions.
Ha ho le jwalo, ho bohlokwa ho tla ka mokgwa wa tshebedisano-mmoho le sepolesa. ICD e tshwanetse ho fumana ka moo e ka fihlellang tsela e kgethehileng, ho phenyekolla le ho pepesa dipatlisiso tsa manyampetla a tshwerweng ke diphaposi tsa Lekala la Sepolesa. (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)
[In that case, it is important to use the strategy of working together with the police. The ICD has to find a special way to search for and expose the corruption that is buried in the offices of the Police Service.]
The ICD should be vigilant in dealing with the problems of police crime and misconduct. I also repeat what the other comrade has said. I will quote from the speech of the President, Comrade Thabo Mbeki, in his state of the nation address on 9 February 2001. Comrade Mbeki made a call. He said:
… we call on all our people across the colour line to dedicate this year to building unity in action for change.
Together with you, we need to speed up the change in order to fulfil or achieve our dreams, as the ANC, of a crime-free South Africa. I call upon members on the opposite side to drastically focus progressively on police brutality, and its occurrence especially in the Western Cape.
The experience of most people in the rural and peri-urban areas is that most police officers from Gauteng are not trained to do police work. They treat victims of break-ins, rape and robbery with no sense of compassion, understanding or sensitivity. In some areas they do not go to the crime scene for days after being called out.
In Sir Lowry’s Pass, a victim of a break-in apprehended a suspect and located another. The police said they could not come at that time and victims were afraid that the criminals would beat them. The DA must change this.
An HON MEMBER: What was happening in Gauteng? [Interjections.]
Ms D M MOROBI: This is unacceptable. The DA has to change this, and it is only then that the result will be a crime-free South Africa. Try to start a dynamic action, as the DA, difficult as it might be for the DA to be dynamic, especially since the DA is an alliance that is disunited, disintegrating and also dissolving.
There are a number of cases the ICD attended to. I will only mention a few cases. In KwaZulu-Natal, Comrade Bheki Mkhize, who was a member of this Parliament, was brutally killed by the police for no apparent reason. The docket was handed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The suspect was charged with murder, and he will appear in court on 22-24 and 30-31 August this year.
In another case in the Northern Cape, Gert Bergman was arrested on 15 July
- The following day, the 16th, it was alleged that he was discovered to have hanged himself. The first postmortem revealed that the cause of death was hanging. The Independent Complaints Directorate insisted on a second postmortem by an independent doctor, who found the cause of death to be multiple injuries. Without any doubt these multiple injuries were caused by police action. The case has now been handed over to the DPP.
Re motjheng, ha re bua ka tshireletso ya setjhaba, ho fedisa botlokotsebe ka hara naha. ANC ha esale e ena le tjhadimo le ponelo-pele. Ka la 26 Phuptjane 1955, ho ile ha thehwa Freedom Charter, eo ka motsotso ona re ntseng re itshetlehile ka yona. Ho na le mola o reng, ho Freedom Charter: ``Ho tla ba le kgotso le tshireletseho ka hara naha’’. (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)
[We are on the right track when we talk about community protection, to stop crime in the country. The ANC has always had foresight. On 26 June 1955, the Freedom Charter, which we are still relying on to this day, was established. There is a line in the Freedom Charter which states: ``There shall be peace and security in the country.’’]
There shall be peace and security.
Mosotho wa kgale o ne a re molao o na le letsoho le le lelele. [A wise old Sotho once said that the law has a long reach.]
The ICD is an institution that ensures the nation of South Africa of its democracy and total transparency. Crime can be combated. I want to appeal to the Minister of Safety and Security to ascertain that the budget of the ICD has a fallback, so as to uplift the performance of that institution.
In closing, I want to thank the head of the ICD, Adv McKenzie, a woman, and her team for a wonderful job well done. I support the Vote. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Adv P S SWART: Chairperson, seven years into democracy should be a time to reflect on successes and prosperity. But there is a sour apple in the ``Trevor Fruit Basket’’, leaving very little comfort. I shall offer what little consolation there is.
Sitting out there is a group of people, the police, committed to ridding this country of the scourge of crime imprisoning our citizens behind burglar bars. They are easily identifiable in their blue uniforms, and I pay tribute to every member of the SA Police Service, from constables to the national Commissioner, for their dedication and hard work.
HON MEMBERS: Hear! Hear! [Applause.]
Adv P S SWART: The Commissioner should refrain from the plot investigation, which may be a mud-in-the-face experience.
Commissioner Selebi made a political remark, that he cannot stand on Table Mountain and shout for more money. That is precisely what he should do. He is not providing leadership when at every police station his officers cry out for more manpower, vehicles and resources to do their work and cope with all the dockets, while he wastes time on grand plans and strategies. He must empower them and he will be empowered.
There is another group, not in uniform or easily identifiable. They do not sit together, and all do not belong to the same party, but they are focused, across party boundaries, to oversee and actively play their role in the ongoing fight against crime. This is the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security. Neither Dennis the Menace Bloem, who occasionally shows up in his pathetic attempts to play the clown, … [Interjections] … nor senior ANC MPs and Whips, deployed to control us when high-profile ANC party matters seem to be the issue, will curb our commitment and diligence.
But, here the comforting stops! If the problem is our lack of focus or the
police’s lack of commitment, why are things, with regard to crime, so sour?
People need a role model. Who better as a role model against crime than the
most senior person in this country engaged in crime fighting, namely the
political head? It should be a shining strong apple, at least sweet as far
as character goes. That is the problem with our fruit basket, the sour,
spoiled apple in our midst.
We normally regard a person who is rude, insulting and given to threatening
physical violence as either a thug or a low-life. It would be
unparliamentary for me to say thug'' and I am deferring from doing so. It
would be parliamentary for me to call the relevant Minister alow-life’’,
but that would say something about my own manners and character, would it
not, so I shall also refrain from doing so. What I shall state, however, is
that he is failing our people and our country. [Interjections.]
Not only that, but I sincerely believe that the ANC, when not defending their nondelivery to our people or clumsily trying to deal with corruption, expensive vehicles, dissent from Cosatu or leadership plots, as a whole and for the greater part, as individuals, is also committed to the fight against crime.
Let me warn the Minister that he is also failing his own party. [Interjections.] They may continue to defend him, unwillingly, while he stumbles from crisis to crisis, badmouthing not only the opposition, but even prominent comrades and veterans from the struggle, but they will only do so up to a point. He is a runaway truck gathering disaster speed, and the collision at the bottom of the hill may prove to be too much even for him. [Interjections.] We can only measure the performance of a department if it functioned properly during the past year with the allocated money resources in terms of its key objectives, in this case not building so many houses or distributing welfare money, but ensuring that crime levels are brought down to acceptable levels.
This brings us to the crime statistics. If the statistics are so unreliable, how does his department plan and operate? We are regularly briefed on how the plans are coming together and the success stories, like Operation Crackdown, when at least 80% of people arrested walked out of courts without being prosecuted. The statistics cover 20 crime categories, yearly figures up to the end of 2000, and quarterly figures up to the end of March 2001. On 18 May 2000 the Minister said in this House:
The year 2000 will see South Africa’s own renaissance in our fight against crime and we will succeed. Peace, stability and freedom from fear will prevail in our country.
We all applauded the Minister, but if the Minister understands by ``renaissance’’ that the more things change the more they stay the same, then indeed we had a mini-renaissance in the fight against crime, because 11 of the 20 categories show increases and the nine with decreases are mostly by percentage points. On a quarterly basis, six indicated increases, one stayed the same and again the decreases are for the greater part minimal. For instance, murder per 100 000 people is down from 10,9 to 10,8. Attempted murder stayed the same at 14,5%, whilst robbery with aggravating circumstances increased from 55,7% to 61,4%. Noting the totals for the 20 categories, the truth is that, on a year-round basis, almost 106 000 more people were victims of crime during 2000 - the Minister’s renaissance - than the year before, the most ever in our democracy. On 31 May 2001, just a week ago, the Minister lifted the moratorium and told the media:
I have no doubt in my mind that the SAPS is on top of the crime situation.
If the Minister calls the current situation with more and more people
falling victim to crime on top'', I can only decipher from what he said
last year in comparison to what he said last week, as a specific uncaring
message to all the millions of people out there who felt unsafe a year ago:
I promised safety but I did not deliver. They should now feel less
safe.’’
In financial terms this failure to achieve the key objective means that the R15,7 billion Adjustments Appropriation for 2000-01 resulted in nothing but the same crime levels, which a year ago the Minister regarded as unacceptably high. Everybody today agrees, including the Deputy Minister. That being the case, the new budget will do nothing more than preserve the status quo, taking inflation into account.
But there is one thing to look forward to - the announced special provision for extra vehicles to prevent the police fleet from total collapse, which in real terms means that the SAPS should end this year with 67 more vehicles than it started with, not much consolation for dedicated police officers stranded without vehicles.
Another thin silver lining to this dark thundercloud is that, after continuous pleas from the DA for more visible policing, there are now items in Programme 2 called Visible Policing and Specialised Visible Policing. [Interjections.] Let us hope that there will indeed be something specialised about that.
I can spend the next five or even 50 sitting days of this House talking
about the killings of our brave police officers, murders of our farmers,
the very people providing us with food; the robbing and raping of tourists,
and other horror stories. I can tell the House of our police stations but
one should go and see for oneself, as we do, the lack of manpower
resources, general conditions and other problems impinging on the morale.
Frankly, I doubt if it would do anything to the Minister’s apparent frame
of mind that he is on top of crime. For me, on top'' surely meansin
control’’.
The truth is that the problems are so big that indicating individual issues will serve little purpose. We need a giant step both in physical allocation and empowerment of our police officers so that the public will respect them and criminals will fear them. I would like to tell the hon Minister that it is time for him to regain, if this is still possible, the public’s respect and the criminals’ fear, not the other way round. The decent part of our public is afraid of him and fearful of his next blunder, and I am sure that the criminals are laughing openly. It is time to inject the police with the much-needed antibiotics to recover from this crime flu, and to use a big dose while we are at it.
Speaking of low police morale, we must also attend to Vote 21, the Independent Complaints Directorate. The portfolio committee already decided our need to debate this directorate situation, financially and with reference to their mandate. If the directorate is forced to stop functioning just after the middle of the financial year because of lack of funding, then something is seriously wrong. When we voted against this budget allocation last year, we warned of this.
In conclusion, it is clear that both these budgets are crying out in their insufficiency. The hon the Minister heard this time and again as this debate progressed, and maybe, just for once, this House will fulfil its role and not be forced by the majority to be the rubberstamp of a Minister who should be thinking about resigning. [Applause.]
Mnr E T FERREIRA: Mnr die Voorsitter, soos reeds aangedui deur my kollegas, sal die IVP hierdie begrotingspos steun. Alhoewel ‘n mens baie maklik kritiek sou kan lewer daaroor of die Regering genoeg geld op die Polisiediens bestee al dan nie, sal dit oneerlik wees om nie te erken dat die situasie aan die verbeter is nie. Die mediumtermyn-beplanning vir die polisiebegroting is ook darem ‘n aanduiding dat die Regering erns het met wet en orde, al is hulle sukses maar effens beperk.
Aan die Minister spesifiek wil ek sê hy doen darem, tussen al sy foute deur, ‘n paar goeie dinge ook. Sy besoek aan funskionele polisiemanne en -vroue sowel as aan families van polisielede wat vermoor is, word op grondvlak geweldig waardeer. Sy uitsprake dat demokrasie en menseregte nie in die pad moet staan daarvan dat misdadigers vasgevat word nie, is ook ‘n geweldige sielkundige hupstoot vir funksionele polisiemanne en -vroue, al was dit ‘n gevaarlike stelling om te maak.
As ‘n mens in die middel- en laat neëntigerjare met polisiemanne op grondvlak gepraat het, was hulle vuisvoos en sielkundig plat en hulle moraal laag. Die afwesigheidsyfer was in daardie stadium daagliks tot 30% hoog. Deesdae is dit af na tot 5%. Dit is so dat strenger beheer deur polisiebestuur baie daarmee te doen het, maar beter moraal speel ongetwyfeld ook ‘n baie groot rol. ‘n Mens kry die indruk dat die polisiemanne en -vroue deesdae ‘n bietjie meer lus is vir hulle taak om misdaad vas te vat.
Daar is tans ongeveer 170 000 mense in Suid-Afrikaanse tronke. Dit is feitlik dubbeld die hoeveelheid tronkinwoners in vergelyking met ses of sewe jaar gelede. Daar was nog nooit in die geskiedenis soveel mense in Suid-Afrikaanse tronke nie. Hulle het hul nie self by die tronke gaan aanmeld nie - hulle is deur die SA Polisiediens in hegtenis geneem en daar geplaas.
Die terreurveldtog wat die Wes-Kaap geteister het, het nie vanself feitlik verdwyn nie. Dit is hierdie Polisiediens wat deur baie mense as vrot afgemaak word, wat hulle vasgevat het. Dit is ook hierdie Polisiediens wat die taxigeweld hier in die Kaapse Skiereiland vasgevat het. Hulle is nie naastenby so sleg as wat hulle uitgemaak word nie.
Misdaad in Suid-Afrika is onaanvaarbaar hoog. Ons kan nie daaroor stry nie. Dat misdaad ook nie werklik verminder nie, is ‘n absolute feit, maak nie saak hoe ‘n mens met die syfers speel nie. Die Polisiediens kan egter beswaarlik geblameer word as hulle die kriminele vang en die stelsel straf die misdadigers nie genoegsaam nie. Dit is ook nie die Polisiediens se skuld dat ons elke nou en dan met iemand se verjaardag ens kriminele vrylaat nie. Nog minder is dit die Polisiediens se skuld dat die Staat moordenaars en verkragters op belastingbetalers se onkoste kos en van die beste mediese dienste gee.
Die koerante is hierdie week vol van gevalle waarin kriminele tydens verskeie misdade deur die Polisie in hegtenis geneem of gedood is. Dit lyk of die polisiemanne meer gereeld skiet en of hulle raakskiet. Enige sterfte is werklik jammer, maar dit is baie beter om te hoor hoe die kriminele sterf en om foto’s van hulle in die koerante te sien as om polisiemanne wat gesterf het se foto’s in die koerante te sien.
Baie stadig, maar baie seker, is die Polisiediens besig om die gety te laat draai. Die tekens is daar. Met die geld wat bewillig is om die ou voertuie met nuwes te vervang gaan dit beslis nog beter gaan, al is dit maar ‘n klein stappie.
Twee kwessies wat egter nog baie kommer wek, is moord op polisiebeamptes en plaasmoorde. Mense wat polisielede vermoor, moet genadeloos gejag word. ‘n Mens kry nog steeds nie werklik die indruk dat dit deur die staat as ‘n absoluut nasionale krisis gesien word nie.
Plaasmoorde sal geheel en al uit ons samelewing moet verdwyn. Die versekering wat ons daagliks kry dat daar geen politieke motief agter plaasmoorde skuil nie, is eenvoudig nie ‘n troos nie. Alhoewel ons die Regering se versekering hieroor graag wil aanvaar, gaan dit baie moeilik wees om die publiek daarvan te oortuig.
Ek kan verskeie gevalle aanhaal waarin die oortreders die oggend nege-uur op die plaas aankom, alles wat hulle wil steel en roof op die boer se bakkie laai en dan die hele dag op die plaas braaivleis hou en kuier. Wanneer die boer en sy vrou vieruur die middag huis toe kom, word hulle op die wreedaardigste moontlike manier vermoor. Die moord duur dikwels ook ‘n baie lang tyd, en aan die beserings is dit baie duidelik dat dit baie meer as doodgewone misdaad is.
Die feit dat ‘n baie groot persentasie plaasaanvallers gevang en tronk toe gestuur word, is nie ‘n troos vir die familielede wat agterbly nie. Die staat en die polisiediens sal baie meer voorkomend moet optree in hierdie verband. Die boere en hulle werkers voorsien die oorgrote meerderheid van Suid-Afrika se bevolking van kos, en voorsien ook baie uitvoerprodukte, wat ‘n groot deel van ons ekonomie uitmaak. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr E T FERREIRA: Mr Chairperson, as already indicated by my colleagues, the IFP will support this Vote. Although one could very easily level criticism about whether or not the Government spends enough money on the Police Service, it would be dishonest not to admit that the situation is improving. The medium-term planning for the police budget is also an indication that the Government is serious about law and order, even if their success is slightly limited.
To the Minister specifically I want to say that, amid all his mistakes, he is doing a few good things as well. His visits to functionary policemen and women, as well as to families of police members who have been murdered, are greatly appreciated on the ground. His statements that democracy and human rights must not stand in the way of criminals being caught are also a great psychological boost for functionary policemen and women, although it was a dangerous statement to make.
If one spoke to policemen on the ground in the middle and late nineties, they were punch-drunk and psychologically flattened and their morale was low. At that stage the rate of absenteeism was as high as 30% daily. These days it is down as low as 5%. It is true that stricter control by police management has had a lot to do with it, but improved morale undoubtedly also plays a very big role. One gets the impression that these days the policemen and women have a slightly greater desire for their task of combating crime.
There are currently approximately 170 000 people in South African prisons. This is virtually double the amount of prisoners compared to six or seven years ago. There have never been so many people in South African prisons in our history. They did not report to the prisons themselves - they were arrested and placed there by the SA Police Service.
The terror campaign which ravaged the Western Cape did not virtually disappear of its own accord. It is this Police Service, which is denounced by many people as being rotten, which captured them. It is also this Police Service which tackled the taxi violence here in the Cape Peninsula. They are not nearly as bad as they are made out to be.
Crime in South Africa is unacceptably high. We cannot argue about that. It is also an absolute fact that crime is not really decreasing, no matter how one plays with the figures. However, the Police Service can hardly be blamed if they catch the criminals and the system does not punish the criminals sufficiently. It is also not the fault of the Police Service that every now and then we release criminals on somebody’s birthday, etc. It is even less the fault of the Police Service that the state provides murderers and rapists with food and some of the best medical services at the expense of taxpayers.
This week the newspapers are full of incidents in which criminals were arrested or killed by the police during various crimes. It seems that the policemen are shooting more regularly and hitting their targets. Any death is truly a pity, but it is much better to hear that the criminals have died and to see photographs of them in the newspapers than to see photographs of policemen who have died in the newspapers.
Very slowly but surely the Police Service is turning the tide. The signs are there. With the money which has been allocated to replace the old vehicles with new ones, there is certainly going to be an even greater improvement, even if it is just a small step.
However, two issues which are still cause for great concern are murders of police officials and farm murders. People who murder police members must be hunted down mercilessly. One still does not really get the impression that this is viewed by the state as an absolute national crisis.
Farm murders will have to disappear entirely from our society. The assurance we receive daily that there is no political motive behind farm murders is simply no comfort. Although we would dearly like to accept the Government’s assurance in this regard, it is going to be very difficult to convince the public of this.
I can quote various incidents in which the offenders arrived at the farm at nine o’clock in the morning, loaded everything they wanted to steal and rob on the farmer’s bakkie and then spent the entire day on the farm braaing and relaxing. When the farmer and his wife arrived home at four o’clock in the afternoon, they were murdered in the cruellest possible manner. The murder often lasts a very long time, and from the injuries it is very clear that it was much more than common crime.
The fact that a very large percentage of farm attackers are caught and imprisoned is no comfort to the family members who remain behind. The state and the Police Service will have to act much more preventively in this regard. The farmers and their workers provide the vast majority of South Africa’s population with food, and also provide many export products, which constitute a big part of our economy. [Time expired.]]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, allow me to address a misconception encouraged in some segments of the media, that many members of Parliament do not fulfil their obligations with regard to being in the House. As I look over the House now, I note just how many hon members are in the House at this late hour, to be specific, 19:37 pm. I trust that the unwarranted criticism in the media will be corrected. [Applause.]
Mr M T GONIWE: Chairperson, and hon Minister Steve Tshwete, of whom we are very, very proud, of course, if the DA criticises the hon the Minister, then we must know that we are on course. If they praise the hon the Minister, then the hon the Minister must pinch himself and realise that something is drastically wrong. [Applause.]
The standpoint of the hon ``Onderbroek’’ Van Schalkwyk should have been to acknowledge the breakthrough in the extermination of terrorism in the Western Cape.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member Gibson, are you rising on a point of order?
Mr D H M GIBSON: Yes, I am, hon Chairperson. The hon person addressing the House knows very well what the hon Mr Van Schalkwyk’s name is. It is not correct to address him in the way that he did. I suggest to the Chair that it is unparliamentary and he should be instructed to withdraw it.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I have previously asked that ``hon’’ should be attached when we refer to any member of this House. Would the hon member please do that.
Mr M T GONIWE: Chairperson, I did, but I used his nickname. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I think ``the hon Van Schalkwyk’’ is the accepted mode of address in this House. [Interjections.] Would you accept that, hon member, so that we can proceed?
Mr M T GONIWE: I do, Chairperson.
Instead of playing the ball, he played the man. [Interjections.] He should have gone on to apologise to Minister Tshwete for having doubted a well- considered opinion when the Minister asserted that Pagad was behind the terrorism in the Western Cape. He could not do this, of course, because the safety and security of the citizens of this country is the least of his concerns. If it were not so, he could not have failed to acknowledge the sacrifice by this Minister and members of the Police Service, some of whom have paid the supreme price, to allow him to take this podium and display his total disrespect, rudeness and utmost stupidity. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
No small wonder that he sacrificed the New NP, which was well on course to re-evaluating its approach. Just at that point, he sold it ``pens en pootjies’’ [boots and all]. [Interjections.] For what price? Just to become Tony Leon’s underwear. [Interjections.] The hon Tony Leon’s underwear. [Interjections.]
We must take this opportunity to congratulate the Commissioner of Police, his deputy and all our men and women in blue on the increasing successes they continue to register. [Applause.]
The DA has chosen a very unfortunate path. They have taken a conscious stand to rubbish the gains South Africa - and the leadership of the ANC - continues to make on all fronts. [Interjections.] They believe that the shortest path to power is strategic confusion. [Interjections.] That strategic confusion derives from a cynical longing for a past that shall never return. [Interjections.] I stand a better chance of winning the Lotto 10 times than those hon members stand of becoming the government of this country again. [Applause.] [Interjections.] God help us all if we imagine President Leon? How scary! [Laughter.] Let it sink into their thick skulls once and for all that they are not in power. They are not in power. [Interjections.]
However, we must reiterate that the level of crime, especially of violent crime, is much too high. It is unacceptable. [Interjections.] Communities are definitely justified in complaining and urging for more drastic measures to arrest the situation. Equally, we must recognise that steady improvements in investigating corruption, smashing the syndicates behind drug trafficking, and robberies and car hijackings, are being made. The laws that are meant to close the gap on criminals are beginning to make a visible impact. [Interjections.] Jails are bursting at the seams with criminals, some of whom have already received stiff sentences.
It is because of these achievements, and many more, that we are confident that we are on course. We can, with confidence, proclaim, as we do, that the rays of dawn have begun to light up our horizon; that the light of freedom is challenging the departing darkness of apartheid and that the days of despair have given way to a season of hope.
Our President, Thabo Mbeki, captured it more succinctly when he said: … gradually, step by step, our country proceeds further away from its painful past.
[Applause.] He went on to say:
It is a past of the denial of freedom to the majority, of gross violation of human rights and repression, of entrenched sexism, a past of high levels of crime, violence and corruption.
Our Police Service is also a part of that past, but it has outpaced the Democratic Alliance in changing and has become part of this unstoppable march to democracy and equality. [Applause.]
Contrary to the wishes of the hon Tony Leon and his stooges, we are not about to throw up our hands in despair in the face of robbers and gangsters. More than anyone else, the criminals know that the battle-lines are drawn and that their days are numbered. [Applause.] The kind of criminal we are dealing with today is not as unsophisticated as the criminals we are dealing with here, because they perpetuated … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Will you kindly withdraw that, hon member? There are no criminals here. There are only hon members here, hon member.
Mr M T GONIWE: Mr Chairperson, my time is moving on. I am left with only two minutes.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, do not worry, you still have time. Will you withdraw that? There are no criminals here. There are only hon members.
Mr M T GONIWE: Well, Mr Chairperson, you did not even hear what I was saying because I did not finish the sentence.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: But I heard the part where you said there were criminals in this House. Will you withdraw that, hon member?
Mr M T GONIWE: I withdraw, reluctantly, Mr Chairperson, because I understand … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, I do not want you to qualify that. This is an important matter because it goes to the … Mr M T GONIWE: Very well. I withdraw it unconditionally, Mr Chairperson.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you. You may proceed, hon member.
Mr M T GONIWE: Apartheid was declared a crime against humanity. It was perpetuated by some hon members of this House who participated and benefited from apartheid. If …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Are you rising on a point of order, hon member?
Mr D J SITHOLE: Mr Chairperson, would the hon member agree that those who do not support the Bill are actually criminals?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Would you please come to the microphone, hon member? In your request there is an insinuation. I want to suggest to you that it is imperative, in a democratic parliament, that we accept that there is integrity in each member who comes here, and we need to preserve that integrity. I therefore request you to withdraw the insinuation.
Mr D J SITHOLE: What I am saying, Mr Chairperson, is that I want to find out from the speaker whether … [Interjections.] I withdraw it, Mr Chairperson.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I thank you. Please proceed, hon member.
Mr M T GONIWE: Mr Chairperson, the dictionary definition of criminal'' is
someone who commits crime’’. If some hon members were unfortunately part
of apartheid, which was a crime, I am not sure what to call them.
[Laughter.]
Let me briefly come back to these attacks against the hon Minister Tshwete, particularly by a young man such as the hon Gaum. The hon Gaum comes from a culture … [Interjections] … in which our mothers’ backs were disrespectfully ridden by white kids in this country.
Babedlala umdlalo wokuqabela amahashe phezu koomama bethu. [They used to get on our mothers’ backs as if they were riding horses.]
That is why it is not odd for the hon member to attack and denigrate persons older than his father in the rude terms that he used. [Interjections.]
We have observed this thing, it is not a mistake. It is a well-planned
murder strategy which sends a message out there: If you are lily-white,
support us'', andAfricans are not worthy of any respect’’.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
All of a sudden … [Interjections] … the honourable opposition has become so brave … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! [Interjections.] Order! Order! [Interjections.]
Mr M T GONIWE: All of a sudden, under a black government, the hon member has become …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Hon member, are you rising on a point of order?
Mr V B NDLOVU: Yes, Chairperson.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Yes, hon Ndlovu? Mr V B NDLOVU: Chairperson, this is an honourable House. We cannot even hear what the hon member is saying, we cannot hear what the other members are saying.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I uphold your point and I want …
Mr V B NDLOVU: We can all sing together, but we cannot speak together.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon member. I uphold your point and I am … [Interjections.]
Order! Hon members, there is nothing wrong with an interjection. An interjection is part of the debate, but when it becomes a howling slanging match then we are departing from the norm. I request you please to contain your excitement and let the speaker continue.
Hon member, I am going to give you a few seconds to wind up.
Mr M T GONIWE: When draconian laws were passed in this House, the opposition sat there like doves. All of a sudden, when laws taking this country forward are being passed, they become hawks. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Let us hear the Minister. [Interjections.] Is that a point of order? [Interjections.] Yes, hon member?
Mr W J SEREMANE: Chairperson, I think I missed your eye. I stood up just before the previous speaker left. I wanted to ask a question relating to exactly what he said. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Unfortunately the member is no longer here. [Interjections.] If it was a question …
Mr W J SEREMANE: Chairperson, I am saying you missed me. It is regrettable, because it relates to the decorum of this House. It relates to the very tenets of democracy. In reverse we can be propagating the ills that have been … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Hon member, the difficulty is that the time of the hon member who was speaking has expired and that is the end of that. [Interjections.]
Mr W J SEREMANE: I accept that. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you. Order! Yes, hon member, are you rising on a point of order?
Ms N E HANGANA: Chairperson, could you please make doubly sure that the hon Mr Seremane has clean water in front of him? [Interjections.] [Laughter.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Hon members, order! Order! [Interjections.]
Considering the time, let us please get on with the business at hand. I would like to ask that we do not pursue this further and give the hon the Minister of Safety and Security the opportunity to speak. [Applause.]
Mr W J SEREMANE: Chairperson, I shall not sink to that low level. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you. Yes, Minister, you may proceed. [Interjections.]
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, first of all I would like to thank hon members Van Wyk, Ndlovu and Ferreira for the constructive suggestions that they have put forward this afternoon. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
The MINISTER: It is quite clear in my mind that, when they came to this House this afternoon, they knew pretty well that there was a serious subject for discussion and consideration, and that suggestions were to be made to Government as to how we should map our way forward to normalise the situation in our country.
I want to assure them that the suggestions that they put forward are going to be seriously considered by the department. The National Commissioner of the SAPS and its top management are also here today, together with the provincial commissioner. They also have taken count of what has been said in these constructive contributions that I have alluded to here.
I am not surprised about the stance that the DA has taken this afternoon. It is a clear demonstration to anybody who has ears to listen and eyes to see that they have revealed their true characters today. [Interjections.] They have never been, for a single moment, interested in the defeat of crime in this country - never for one moment. [Interjections.]
Historically, the NP has been at the forefront in the creation of an environment of crime and criminality, particularly when it comes to the black people of this country. [Applause.] What has been said here is true, that when the UN described apartheid, which the NP spearheaded, as a crime not only against the black people of this country but against humanity, they were making a direct statement to what the NP is. All of them, without exception, have not changed. [Interjections.]
That is why, when we were being serious this afternoon, in saying that this is the money that has been given to the Department of Safety and Security and this is how it proposes to spend that money, the DA had absolutely no interest in it. Because they are not serious and they have never been serious about crime. [Interjections.]
Here is a classic example: One of them moved a motion this afternoon - whoever she is - and in that motion she said that crime in the CBD in Cape Town has dropped by 50%. [Interjections.] She is cheerful and happy - typical white politics. [Interjections.] I was with the Minister of Defence in Manenberg. The people in Manenberg will never say that. The people in Manenberg have no reason to be jubilant. [Applause.] It shows her mind-set that she sees crime only as far as it affects the white community. They created those gangsters in Manenberg. They are not saying a word about that sad situation in Manenberg, about the people who are dying every day at the hands of the gangsters that they created there. [Interjections.] It is because, at the end of the day, they have no interest in Manenberg. [Interjections.] They are interested in the white suburbs of Cape Town and the CBD. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, are you rising on a point of order?
Mr I J PRETORIUS: No, I would like to ask whether the Minister … [Interjections.]
The MINISTER: Come, come, come with the question! [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! [Interjections.] Order! The Chair wants to know whether you are rising on a point of order or not? Mr I J PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, I am not rising on a point of order, but I am asking whether the Minister is willing to take a question? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Minister, are you willing to take a question?
The MINISTER: Yes, I will take the question.
Mr I J PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, can the Minister spell out the competencies of the Ministers of security in the provinces? [Interjections.]
The MINISTER: Mr Chairperson, he is asking about the competencies of a Minister of security in the provinces, he should know that. [Interjections.] He is a disgrace. He is an MP and yet he does not know what the competencies of their men are, and he asks that question here! He should know that. [Interjections.] The man over there knows what his competencies are. The hon member knows that pretty well.
The point of the matter is that his leader here, the hon Van Schalkwyk, decided to devote his entire time to a personal attack on me. I have absolutely no problem with that. I would have been very worried if he had attacked me politically, because he would have undermined the political base of the party that is in power in this country, and that is going to be in power for a very long time, and that they will never unseat.
I thought that perhaps I could reply and guide him. But he should just trace his own character. Where does he come from? What did he do in the dark days of apartheid? If there is one person who is not supposed to be sitting here, who is supposed to be sitting elsewhere, outside this Chamber, it is he. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: It is you!
The MINISTER: You are unrepentant and arrogant!
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: You are arrogant!
The MINISTER: That is what you are. You are the physical embodiment of arrogance. Apartheid arrogance is still there with you. That is what you are. [Interjections.]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: You are arrogant!
The MINISTER: If there is any person who is not supposed to be here, it is you and your ilk. [Laughter.]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: You do not belong here.
The MINISTER: The fact that today you are still able to speak here, hardly ten years … Some of us still have the wounds of your sjamboks on our bodies. They have not healed. [Interjections.] You still have the audacity to stand here and say all that you have been saying today. [Interjections.] It is an indication that you are a study in arrogance. [Laughter.] That is what you are. [Interjections.] You should not have been here. [Interjections.]
You must thank your lucky stars that there is an organisation such as the ANC which has been able to stand between the anger of the people and yourself. You should never have been here. [Interjections.]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: You should not be here. [Interjections.]
The MINISTER: You said that I stood here and attacked the Muslim community.
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes, you did.
The MINISTER: That is a blatant lie.
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: It is not.
The MINISTER: It is here. You can approach the Hansard. That is a blatant lie. It is an indication … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order!
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to say another member told a blatant lie? [Interjections.] It was out of order earlier on.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Minister, it is unparliamentary. Would you please withdraw that?
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, it is unparliamentary to say that a member has told a blatant lie. What I would suggest is that perhaps the Minister could say that the member was guilty of a terminological inexactitude. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER: Chairperson, I withdraw the statement. However, I will not use that phrase, because he will never understand it. [Interjections.] What I want to say is that that was an untruth. There is a written statement in Hansard, and I even distinguished between Pagad and the decent Muslim community in Cape Town.
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Only afterwards!
The MINISTER: Here from behind this podium I called upon them to isolate Pagad. [Interjections.] I said that they were using the name of a great religion for silly purposes. It is so easy for you to fabricate untruths, because that is true to character, otherwise you are not yourself. One friend of yours up here said that I also attacked members of the Portuguese community.
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: You did!
The MINISTER: Again, that is an untruth. I wrote a letter to a specific organisation, addressed to that specific organisation. I said to them that that was what they were saying, and they were purporting to be representative of the Portuguese community. Ever since then I have had numerous meetings with many members of the Portuguese community who are not going to confirm what you are saying there.
You made reference to unregulated use of powers, and how the FBI did that. Again, it is an indication of the hon Van Schalkwyk’s failure to root himself in his own environment here at home. He did not have to go to the FBI in the US. He just had to look at how he himself, a member of the New NP and others in the New NP, in that regime, abused those powers of the police.
I asked his friends in the portfolio committee to show me a single instance where there has been abuse, one instance where I have abused state power. They were never able to come up with that kind of thing. They were repeating those things here because of their political bankruptcy. [Interjections.]
Lastly, I want to thank the National Commissioner and the top management for steering the South African Police Service onto these successful paths. I want to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee. He should be entitled to a tolerance allowance for sitting in that portfolio committee with some of these people. [Interjections.] And, of course, I thank the executive director of the ICD.
I am tabling the unfinished part of my speech, including the ICD part of it. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The House adjourned at 20:04. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology on 31 May
2001 submitted drafts of the "Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal"
Act Repeal Bill, 2001, the Academy of Science of South Africa
Bill, 2001, and the Africa Institute of South Africa Bill, 2001,
as well as the memoranda explaining the objects of the proposed
legislation, to the Speaker and the Chairperson in terms of Joint
Rule 159. The drafts have been referred to the Portfolio Committee
on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology and the Select Committee
on Education and Recreation by the Speaker and the Chairperson,
respectively, in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
The following papers were tabled and are now referred to the relevant
committees as mentioned below:
(1) The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report. It is also referred
to the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy and to the
Select Committee on Economic Affairs for information:
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote
No 23 - Minerals and Energy for 1999-2000 [RP 132-2000].
(2) The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report. It is also referred
to the Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry and to
the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs for
information:
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote
No 35 - Water Affairs and Forestry and Related Accounts for 1999-
2000 and a Performance Audit of the Project Management of the
Community Water Supply [RP 144-2000].
National Assembly:
- The Speaker:
(1) Mr P R Mokaba has been appointed as chairperson of the Ad Hoc
Committee on Powers and Privileges of Parliament with effect from
6 June 2001.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Bills:
- The Minister of Sport and Recreation:
(1) Wysigingswetsontwerp op die Suid-Afrikaanse Sportkommissie [W 2
- 2001].
The South African Sports Commission Amendment Bill [B 2 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75) was introduced in the National Assembly on 6 February 2001 and referred to the Portfolio Committee on Sport and Recreation.
Papers:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote No 34
- Transport for 1999-2000 [RP 143-2000].
Referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for consideration
and report. Also referred to the Portfolio Committee on Transport and
to the Select Committee on Public Services for information.
- The Minister of Trade and Industry:
(1) Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Trade and
Industry for 1999-2000 [RP 66-2001], including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote No 33 - Trade
and Industry for 1999-2000 [RP 142-2000].
(2) Executive Summary of the Report of the Department of Trade and
Industry for 1999-2000 [RP 66-2001].