National Assembly - 09 October 2001
TUESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2001 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:05.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Dr E A SCHOEMAN: 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 President Thabo Mbeki will deliver a commemorative lecture in remembrance of Comrade Z K Matthews; (2) believes that Comrade Z K Matthews played an important role in the struggle for the total liberation of the people of South Africa;
(3) acknowledges the role and contribution of Comrade Z K Matthews in the struggle for liberation; and
(4) reiterates our commitment to work tirelessly for a nonracial, nonsexist and democratic South Africa.
[Applause.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes with dismay the statement by the hon Mr Tony Yengeni in which he criticised the Scorpions because they were ``too white’’ and in which Mr Yengeni implied that black people would have a different and lower standard in respect of his alleged criminal activities, and he would therefore not have been charged criminally; and (2) therefore resolves to censure the hon Mr Yengeni for the gross insult which he has paid to all black South Africans.
[Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon Mr Gibson, I need to clarify something. Do you in fact want to move a motion of substance on another member? It is not the content that is my concern.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I am giving notice of an intention to move a motion which censures Mr Yengeni, because of the statement he made, which I aver is a racist statement and an insult to black South Africans.
The SPEAKER: Order! I will look into that.
Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes the Constitutional Court judgment on the admission age to independent schools;
(2) believes -
(a) that the principles of choice and recognition of mental age is
very important; and
(b) that discrimination in terms of age in the school admission
policy will no longer be the only determinant, but that mental
age will also be considered in the sum total composing a human
being; and
(3) hopes that a sense of urgency in treating this matter as a qualitative rather than a quantitative aspect in so far as public school admissions are concerned, will prevail.
Mrs Z A KOTA: 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 with profound sadness and sorrow the tragic death of Comrade Chris Gutuza last Sunday;
(2) believes that Comrade Chris played an important role -
(a) through his work at Media Training and Development Trust, in
nurturing talent of potential journalists from disadvantaged
backgrounds, and was a firm believer in the freedom of the press
and the right to information as a human right; and
(b) in ensuring that communities were informed about realities of
life under apartheid when he was working for South newspaper;
(3) expresses our sincere condolences to his wife, Ayesha Ishmael, his two daughters, his friends and relatives; and
(4) joins them in mourning the untimely departure of this patriot.
[Applause.]
Mr J J DOWRY: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes with concern that a growing number of Ministers use Question Time as a platform to make personal and racist remarks such as referring to black opposition MPs as ``Mr White’’;
(2) questions the commitment of Ministers and any other member of Parliament guilty of making racist insults to the eradication of racism in South Africa;
(3) calls on the majority party to condemn the remarks made by these Ministers; and
(4) urges all MPs to refrain from such disgraceful behaviour, because not only is it a shame that they have to be reprimanded for such actions, but it is also an embarrassment for Parliament.
[Applause.]
Mr C T FROLICK: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) notes the Appeal Court judgment clearing the way for some 40 000 pensioners to bring a class action against the Eastern Cape government;
(2) further notes that this is the first time that such an action will be allowed in South Africa;
(3) also notes the strongly worded Appeal Court judgment that slammed the Eastern Cape government for attempting to block the pensioners’ right to bring the action, and that the Government had acted as though it was ``at war with its citizens’’;
(4) calls on the Government to protect the poor and most vulnerable sectors of our community; and
(5) calls on the people of the Eastern Cape to reject the provincial government’s posturing as caring, while in reality practising social injustice.
Mrs J CHALMERS: 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 ANC-led Government has successfully contained the spread of malaria in KwaZulu-Natal;
(2) further notes that the South African Government received a United Nations award of excellence for the best malaria control programme in the world;
(3) believes that the successful fight against malaria reflects Government’s commitment to providing health care that meets the needs of our people;
(4) commends the ANC-led Government for having successfully contained the spread of malaria; and
(5) acknowledges the commitment of the ANC-led Government to directing state funds to fighting poverty-related diseases such as TB and cholera.
[Applause.]
Rev K R J MESHOE: 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) with disapproval the failure of the Department of Education to
make copies of the controversial Curriculum 2005 freely
available for public comment and input;
(b) with shock that many libraries, colleges and universities have
not even heard of the national Curriculum 2005 and fewer than a
handful have access to it;
(c) with disapproval the state's attempt to bypass parents and
introduce a curriculum that undermines the moral values and
religious beliefs of Christian parents; and
(d) with disgust the diabolical plan of some in the department to
indoctrinate children and deny parents the right to choose what
type of education their children should receive; and
(2) therefore calls on the Minister of Education to be transparent and to -
(a) extend the deadline for inputs to the end of the year, so as to
give parents reasonable time to study the document;
(b) ensure that at least every school's governing body has a copy of
the controversial Curriculum 2005;
(c) respect the right of every parent to make decisions about the
education of their children; and
(d) inform the public, and in particular this House, who decided on
the content of the curriculum and why there has been so little,
if any, input from parents and community members.
[Applause.]
Dr P W A MULDER: Mev die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die VF sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis kennis neem dat -
(1) die Vryheidsfront vroeër vanjaar ‘n klag by die Persombudsman ingedien het teen die Mail & Guardian na aanleiding van ‘n Zebulon Dread-artikel oor die Klein Karoo Kunstefees te Oudtshoorn, wat aanstoot aan baie Afrikaners gegee het en wat deur die koerant geplaas is;
(2) die klagte deur die VF suksesvol was en dat daar in die nuutste uitgawe van die Mail & Guardian ‘n verskoning aan Afrikaners oor die artikel deur die redakteur geplaas is, tesame met ‘n opvolgartikel deur die VF; (3) die VF hierdie verskoning van die Mail & Guardian teenoor Afrikaners aanvaar en dit verwelkom;
(4) persvryheid van groot belang is vir die VF en dat ons alles moontlik sal doen om dit te beskerm, maar dat die artikel van Zebulon Dread alle grense van fatsoenlikheid oorskry het - daarom die klagte; en
(5) die VF daarom dankbaar is dat die media se eie dissiplinêre proses gewerk het, en dit dus moontlik was om die probleem op hierdie wyse bevredigend deur die Persombudsman te kon oplos. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Dr P W A MULDER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the FF:
That the House notes that -
(1) earlier this year the FF lodged a complaint with the Press Ombudsman against the Mail & Guardian, arising from a Zebulon Dread article about the Klein Karoo Kunstefees at Oudtshoorn, which offended many Afrikaners and which was published by the newspaper; (2) the complaint by the FF was successful and that an apology to Afrikaners for the article has been printed in the latest edition of the Mail & Guardian by its editor, along with a follow-up article by the FF;
(3) the FF accepts and welcomes this apology to Afrikaners by the Mail & Guardian;
(4) freedom of the press is of great importance to the FF and that we will do all that is possible to defend it, but that the article by Zebulon Dread exceeded all limits of decency - hence the complaint; and
(5) the FF is therefore grateful that the media’s own disciplinary process has worked, and that it was therefore possible for the Press Ombudsman to solve the problem satisfactorily in this way.]
Mr F BHENGU: 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 71 students will leave South Africa to study medicine in Cuba;
(2) further notes that the people and the government of Cuba played an important role in the struggle against minority rule in the country and region, and assisted the liberation movement in defending the gains of the revolution in Angola;
(3) believes that the people and the government of Cuba remain committed to the progressive values of international solidarity, freedom and equality; and
(4) acknowledges the commitment of the Cuban people to support our struggle to create a better life for all our people.
[Applause.]
Mr T D LEE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes with dismay that the ANC, specifically the Minister of Sport
and Recreation, refers to coloured South Africans as coconuts'',
thereby suggesting that we are notblack’’ enough to be treated
with respect;
(2) questions the commitment of the ANC to a country that is free of racism when its Ministers resort so frequently to racist labelling in this House;
(3) demands that the ANC treat all South Africans equally, and give recognition to the contributions of all our people to building a united future; and
(4) calls on the ANC to apologise unreservedly to coloured South Africans for this insult.
[Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, there is an outstanding ruling on that matter. I will ensure that the relevant presiding officer will give a ruling very quickly.
Mrs I MARS: 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 function of allocating the proceeds from the National
Lottery is located within the national Department of Trade and
Industry; and
(b) that welfare and other charitable organisations fall mainly
under the national Department of Social Development; and
(2) calls on the Government to reallocate the function of distributing the proceeds of the National Lottery to the national Department of Social Development.
Mr M R BALOYI: 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 Newlands Stadium hosted the Coca-Cola double-header soccer match last weekend;
(2) further notes that this match was successful and free of incidents of crime and hooliganism;
(3) believes that events of this nature enhance nation-building and present scarce opportunities for small traders and hawkers to generate much-needed income; and
(4) calls on the DA city council and other sensitive-minded authorities to accept and direct that soccer be played at the Newlands Stadium for future events.
[Applause.]
Mr A Z A VAN JAARSVELD: 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 mayor of the Nelson Mandela Metropole, Nceba Faku, has allegedly been misappropriating the Mayor’s Discretionary Fund, set up to assist needy and deserving community causes, for his personal use to the tune of R87 000;
(2) further notes that the mayor allegedly used more than R27 000 of this fund to pay his traffic fines and tuition fees for relatives, as well as other amounts for driving lessons, holiday expenses, etc; and
(3) calls on the provincial auditor to investigate these allegations and to ensure that -
(a) a full disclosure is made of all moneys spent from this fund;
and
(b) all moneys used are paid back into the Mayor's Discretionary
Fund.
[Applause.]
Prof L M MBADI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) the disarray in the Department of Education relating to the
Minister's strange priorities; and
(b) that an alarming quarter of the Grade 7 pupils sampled in a
school census pilot study are 15 years or older, which means
that a quarter of them have already failed at least one year of
primary schooling;
(2) expresses its concern at the rate of crime, rape, sexual harassment, drug abuse and related violence that affects both students and teachers; and
(3) calls on the Minister to stop wasting time and energy on issues such as denying six-year-olds entry into schools, and to deal with the important matters that affect the future of our children.
Mr S PHOHLELA: 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 Office of the Executive Mayor in Mogale Local Municipality
has undertaken extensive research to identify all citizens of
the ages of 90 and above;
(b) a database with 254 names has been compiled and will be followed
up with the compilation of a brief history of each citizen; and
(c) the Office of the Executive Mayor will host a centenary birthday
party in honour of this living heritage;
(2) believes that this event will bring back the dignity of our elderly citizens and minimise their abuse;
(3) welcomes this new initiative; and
(4) calls on other unicity councils to emulate this important example.
[Applause.]
TERRORIST ATTACKS ON PARLIAMENTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) noting with shock the spate of terrorist attacks on a number of parliaments throughout the world, namely -
(a) the attack on the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir in
Srinagar in India resulting in 31 deaths; and
(b) the attack on the Zug Cantonal Assembly in Switzerland in which
14 parliamentarians died;
(2) believes that such despicable attempts to undermine democratic governance will ultimately prove fruitless as countries throughout the world unite to defend themselves against the scourge of terrorism;
(3) condemns these attacks and offers its sympathy to those nations who have been so attacked; and
(4) sends its condolences to the bereaved and wishes those injured a speedy recovery.
Agreed to.
CENSUS WEEK
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that Census Week starts tomorrow, 10 October 2001;
(2) believes that the census process is critical for determining the needs of the people and for the most effective allocation of resources;
(3) confirms its support for Census Week; and
(4) calls on all South Africans to co-operate with the census officials and to stand and be counted.
Agreed to.
DESIGNATION OF MR M A MZIZI TO SERVE ON MAGISTRATES COMMISSION
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, I move the motion printed on the Order Paper in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, as follows:
That the House, in terms of section 3(1)(a)(x) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993), designates Mr M A Mzizi to replace Prof L B G Ndabandaba on the Magistrates Commission.
Agreed to.
ALLOCATION OF SPEAKING TIMES
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, I move the motion printed on the Order Paper in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, as follows:
That, notwithstanding Rule 106, for the rest of 2001 the following times be allocated for party responses to statements by Ministers:
African National Congress: 5 minutes; Democratic Party: 4 minutes;
Inkatha Freedom Party: 4 minutes; New National Party: 3 minutes; United
Democratic Movement: 2 minutes and all other parties: 1 minute each.
Agreed to.
AGRICULTURAL DEBT MANAGEMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, hon members, a number of us here will recall that, from 1994 and until about 1999, part of my responsibility as Deputy Minister was to look after agricultural finance. At that time my Minister was an hon member sitting here in this House, hon Van Niekerk.
He told me that there were two important things in agriculture, one was credit and the other marketing. I wondered what was so important about finance, except that I, as an individual, also knew that without money one can do very little.
Apart from agricultural finance and marketing, the other important things in agriculture were land, extension services and research. These matters continue to be important, even today. We all know, and would agree, that all entrepreneurs, including farmers, need credit in order to effectively invest in activities of farming to provide food for all of us, but also to ensure that they can realise some income out of the products that they produce. Such products may not only be used for purposes of household consumption, but can also be used in other industrial activities that can increase our economic growth.
The challenge of credit has always been how to utilise money in a manner that assists us to do what we intend to do. Particularly in agriculture, those responsible for giving credit always look at the stability of the sector. Agriculture has always been regarded by everybody as one of the very high risk industries. But it is important to say that, no matter how risky it is, it is a necessary sector and a necessary industry for any country.
Historically, credit and financial support was used to establish the South African agricultural sector that we are all proud of today. It is important to note that it was also this element that was effectively used to discriminate against those who were not part of the mainstream of agriculture.
We know that there were some interventions in the past, particularly by the various homeland governments. But all of us also know part of the problem was the way in which credit was extended and managed afterwards. That was always a cause for concern.
For this reason we sought to amend the Agricultural Credit Act in 1995. We wanted to bring it into line with our new Constitution and to expand it to include all farmers, regardless of race and gender. But the question persisted: How do we deal with rural finance in South Africa?
We all realise that at that time, rural farmers of this country, particularly those in the former homelands and on trustlands, faced challenges such as commercial farmer institutions which found it very difficult to lend money to people in those areas. Issues of administrative expenses linked to distances and many others were raised.
From 1995 to 1997 there were various reviews, searching for ways to make finance accessible to all South Africans, particularly rural South Africans. In 1996 the hon member Derek Hanekom, who was Minister then, approached former President Mandela to appoint the Strauss commission to investigate and look comprehensively at agricultural finance systems and rural finance in particular.
Out of that process came recommendations that we as Government accepted and we had to act. One of those was to eliminate the role of Government from direct lending, or managing a loan book, if one may call it that. We had to ensure that Government could make some interventions to assist the sector. The challenge we had to face was how to amend the Agricultural Credit Act while ensuring, at the same time, that the Land Bank attends to the needs of farmers in the broader sense. Hon members will recall that that was one of the things that happened.
If we look back at what happened with the Agricultural Credit Act, this was one of the most comprehensive mechanisms around which we used to build the commercial farmers of today. Hon members will also recall that we used this instrument to finance all other matters not regarded as core matters in agriculture.
I will not bore hon members with the details, but some members will remember that some of our farmers were not just farmers, but were also used as commandos on the borders to protect the old South Africa. There were other issues that were cushioned around the Agricultural Act and, therefore, we had to deal with them.
We must also realise that in managing the Agricultural Credit Act, the realities were that a number of farmers did not necessarily pay back the state. If they had many other financial institutions that they owed, the Agricultural Credit Board was the last in the line. Interestingly, when we had to take particular action, and I asked one of the farmers as to why it had been difficult for him to pay, given the fact that he sought Ministerial intervention so that I had to make sure that my officials did not come after him, he said:
You know, Minister, firstly, Agricultural Credit Act money is very cheap. Secondly, you know that the state is very patient. Therefore, when I have to decide between paying you, on the one hand, and Standard Bank and FNB, on the other, it is always easier for me to choose FNB and Standard Bank, and you are the last in the line, because I can come and ask for consolidation and you will be very sympathetic.
I said: ``Well, things have to change. If you borrow money, you must pay it back.’’
So, the Bill that we are proposing, that this Parliament must assist us to approve, is to ensure that the money that was lent to farmers, which is money that we pay as a result of tax, must be paid back.
The fact that we had to rationalise the Agricultural Credit Act does not mean that those people must get away with it and say: ``Since the instrument is not there, therefore, there is no need to pay back the money.’’ This money is still required for assistance, not just for the developing sector of this country, but for all farmers who are actually in need of that resource.
One interesting thing about this Bill is that it allows this Parliament to appropriate money annually from that fund for specific use in the interventions that are necessary for agricultural development. As South Africans we have learned the lesson that whatever intervention we seek to make, we must ensure that it does not distort our own domestic market and our international markets.
However, it is necessary that we must have an instrument through which we can be able to support our farmers. That is the principle. But, more importantly, working with the Ministry of Finance, the proposed amendment to the Act allows us to provide that intervention, transparently and with accountability. But, it also strengthens our arm to continue to collect the debt that has been owed to the state for a number of years.
I am happy to report to this House that since the rationalisation of the Agricultural Credit Act, we have continued to collect money. As we speak today, we have approximately R800 million in the Agricultural Credit Account. We want to continue to improve on that level of debt collection.
While the Act allows us to write off debt, we are not going to do that willy-nilly. We will make sure that where debt must be written off, we are satisfied that, indeed, the farmer concerned cannot pay back that money, given whatever circumstances. But, we will make sure that, indeed, we come true to all members of the public and that the money that they pay to assist with the development of the sector is looked after in an appropriate manner. I would like to thank members of the portfolio committee for the way in which they have worked with the Ministry to ensure that we get this Bill to this House today. I hope that all members will support the Bill, as they supported it in the committee. [Applause.]
Adv S P HOLOMISA: Madam Speaker, it gives me immense pleasure to speak on behalf of the ANC in support of the Agricultural Debt Management Bill. The Bill constitutes yet another measure by our democratic nonracial Government to redress the imbalances of our apartheid past. Over many years, the apartheid government rendered financial and other forms of support to practising and aspirant white farmers to the total exclusion of the rest of the South African population. The assistance given to those farmers was in the form of various financial schemes and loans which were repayable on favourable terms. Owing to various reasons and in spite of the said favourable terms, a large number of those farmers have still not paid up their debts.
To a large extent, the loans were extended under the auspices of the Agricultural Credit Board. The Agricultural Credit Board has since been disbanded and some of the money that was recovered from the farmers lies in the Agricultural Credit Account. In terms of this amending Bill, money collected as part of agricultural debt recovery will be administered through the Agricultural Debt Account. At the present moment, as the Minister has indicated, the money that has been collected stands at approximately R837 million, while the amount still outstanding is also approximately R800 million.
It was the wish of the portfolio committee that this money be insulated from the rest of the funds of the National Revenue Fund. We would have preferred that the money in this account be set aside to be used exclusively for the new entrants to the commercial farming sector without its being subjected to appropriation by Parliament. The loans, however, had been allocated from moneys belonging to the national fiscus. It stands to reason, therefore, that when the debts have been recovered the money should go back to the National Revenue Fund.
Being fully conscious of the constitutional right of Parliament to make appropriations at its own discretion, without being dictated to by anyone, we have, however, managed to include provisions in the Bill which will ensure that the money in the account will be used for purposes of agricultural development programmes. The sweet irony of all of this is that this money which, as I have said, was previously set aside for the exclusive use of white South Africans, will now be available for the development and upliftment of those who were previously excluded. We would thus urge hon members to take the message and bring it to aspirant black commercial farmers that there is money available to them as well under this Government of equal opportunities.
It pleases me to report that all participating members of the portfolio committee were at one in wishing that this money be used for the promotion of black farmers. This, I hope, is a sign of things to come and a commitment by all of us to the ideal of a better life for all of our people.
At the recent annual conference of Agri SA in Mpumalanga, I found it extremely encouraging to hear some of the delegates to the conference saying: ``It is far better to have an affluent and satisfied neighbour than to have a miserable, poor one.’’ They were, of course, talking about the need for white commercial farmers to use their skills, expertise and experience to assist aspirant black farmers to grow by giving them training and other forms of support. This humanitarian gesture, we hope, will be extended to address the plight of labour tenants and farmworkers who still do not own land of their own. As the ANC, we accordingly support this Bill. [Applause.]
Dr A I VAN NIEKERK: Madam Speaker, the hon the Minister would recollect
that we had an interesting experience regarding the Agricultural Credit
Act. When I became a Deputy Minister in 1986 I asked the then Minister:
What must I do?'' He replied:I will tell you tomorrow.’’ The next day
when I got there he looked at me and said: I think that you should manage
the Agricultural Credit Act.'' That is where I learnt something about the
problems of agriculture. In 1994, the new Deputy Minister who was appointed
came to me and asked:What must I do?’’ I said to her: I will tell you
tomorrow.'' The next day I said to her:I think that you should take on
the Agricultural Credit Act.’’ That is how one learns about the problems of
agriculture. When one works with credit and the problems of agriculture,
one learns how finance works.
Regarding the Bill that is before us today, I think that we agree to the changes introduced by it and we will support it. I think that the debt that has remained should be managed and used for agriculture. I think that that is important. So, I will not speak about it.
Die Wet op Landboukrediet is baie jare lank al van krag en het baie boere gehelp om gevestig te raak. In dié proses het skuld opgebou. Daar is ‘n verwagting dat dié skuld aan landboukrediet afgeskryf kan word. Ek meen die Minister het baie duidelik gesê dat dit nie gaan gebeur nie, en dit is reg so. Behalwe vir die sowat 7 000 boere wat steeds sowat 12 000 rekeninge by landboukrediet het, is daar duisende boere wat wel die spel gespeel en hul skuld oor ‘n tydperk betaal het. Dit sal onregverdig wees as dié skuld afgeskryf sou word. Ek meen mense moet daarvan kennis neem.
Ek wil praat oor die geskiedenis van die Wet op Landboukrediet wat ons vandag afskaf. Na my mening is dit jammer dat dit gebeur. Hoewel dié wet in die verlede probleme geskep het as gevolg van die regime, of die regering van die dag, het hy ‘n belangrike rol gespeel om boere wat nie geld of kennis gehad het nie, te help om gevestig te raak.
As voorbeeld verwys ek na die ontwikkeling by Kakamas, Boegoeberg, Loskopdam en Vaalharts waar daar niks was nie. Geen finansiële instelling wou mense help om daar te gaan boer nie. Uiteindelik was daar ‘n stelsel en ‘n wet. Landboukredietkomitees bestaande uit verantwoordelike lede het mense geïdentifiseer wat vir hulp kwalifiseer en só het die departement gehelp om boere te vestig. Hulle is teen ‘n baie lae rentekoers geldelik gehelp. Dit het daartoe gelei dat mense die eerste vyf tot tien jaar suksesvol kon boer en kon oorleef.
Vandag boer hoogs suksesvolle boere by Kakamas, Boegoeberg, Loskop, die Springbokvlakte en oor die hele land, en hulle het almal daar begin. Dis jammer dat dié wet nie omvorm word om steeds ‘n bydrae te lewer tot die vestiging van nuwe boere in ons grondhervormingsproses nie. Na my mening vorder dié proses te stadig en moet dit baie meer momentum kry.
Miskien is een van die redes daarvoor dat ons van te veel ander organisasies gebruik wil maak en op te veel ander wette wil steun om, op dieselfde wyse, sukses met grondhervorming en die vestiging van nuwe boere te behaal. Ek weet nie, maar ek voorspel dat ons oor vyf jaar van nou af, wanneer ons miskien steeds sukkel met grondhervorming omdat dit so verspreid is, weer ‘n landboukredietwet sal hê en dat mense van die gemeenskap weer verantwoordelikheid sal neem en toekennings sal maak. Hulle sal besluit wie moet kry en wie nie, en help om die inwerkingstelling van grondhervorming op die platteland momentum te gee.
Ek wil ook graag by dié geleentheid hulde bring aan die duisende landboukredietkomiteelede wat jare lank vrywillig in elke distrik verantwoordelikheid aanvaar het om die staat se geld aan te wend om boere te help … [Tussenwerpsels.] Hulle het hulle gehelp. Ek het mos gesê ons moet dié beginsel omvorm.
Ek wil net dankie sê vir mense wat gehelp het om landbou te vestig, vir die Landboukredietraad en vir amptenare in die departement wat nog steeds daar is. Ons moet daardie kundigheid wat oor jare opgebou is, omvorm en aanwend sodat ons werklik aan die behoeftes kan voldoen van mense wat vandag tot die landbou wil toetree. Sodoende kan ons die probleem regstel waarna die agb lid verwys het en waarmee ek saamstem. Nietemin is die kennis en vermoë daar; ons moet dit nie op grond van ander omstandighede eenkant toe skuif nie.
Hier is ‘n geleentheid waarbinne ons dit kan inspan sodat ons ‘n beter Suid- Afrika kan kry, sodat ons die nodige nuwe boere kan vestig en sodat ons dié nuwe boere die vermoë kan gee om gedurende die eerste vier tot vyf maande en vier tot vyf jaar te kan oorleef.(Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The Agricultural Credit Act has been in force for many years and has helped to establish many farmers. In this process debt accumulated. There is an expectation that this debt to agricultural credit could be written off. I think the Minister said very clearly that this was not going to happen, and rightly so. Apart from the about 7 000 farmers who still have about 12 000 accounts with agricultural credit, there are thousands of farmers who in fact played the game and paid their debt over a period of time. It would be unfair if this debt were to be written off. I think that people should take note of this.
I want to speak about the history of the Agricultural Credit Act that we are abolishing today. In my view it is regrettable that this is happening. Although this Act created problems in the past owing to the regime, or the government of the day, it played an important role in helping to establish farmers who did not have money or knowledge, to establish themselves.
As an example I would like to mention the development at Kakemas, Boegoeberg, Loskop Dam and Vaalharts, where there was nothing. No financial institution would help people to go and farm there. Eventually there was a system and an Act. Agricultural credit committees consisting of responsible members identified people who qualified for assistance and in this way the department helped to establish farmers. They were assisted financially at a very low interest rate. This meant that people could farm successfully and survive the first five to ten years.
Today highly successful farmers farm at Kakemas, Boegoeberg, Loskop, the Springbokvlakte and right across the country, and they all started there. It is a pity that this Act is not being transformed to keep making a contribution to the establishment of new farmers in our land reform process. In my view this process is progressing too slowly and should gain far greater momentum.
Perhaps one of the reasons for that is that we want to use too many other organisations and rely on too many other laws to achieve similar success with land reform and the establishment of new farmers. I do not know, but I predict that in five years from now, when we are perhaps still struggling with land reform, because it is so widespread, we will once again have an agricultural credit Act and that people of the community will once again accept responsibility and make allocations. They will decide who must get and who not, and help to give momentum to putting land reform in the rural areas into operation.
I would also on this occasion like to pay tribute to the thousands of agricultural credit committee members who for many years voluntarily accepted responsibility in each district for applying the state’s money to help farmers … [Interjections.] They helped them. Surely I have said that we should transform this principle.
I just want to say thank you to those people who helped to establish agriculture, to the Agricultural Credit Board and to officials in the department who are still there. We must transform and use that expertise that has been built up over the years, so that we can really meet the needs of people who want to enter agriculture today. In so doing we can rectify the problem to which the hon member made reference, and with which I agree. The knowledge and ability are nevertheless there; we should not move it aside on the basis of other circumstances.
This is an opportunity for us to harness it in order to achieve a better South Africa, so that we can help to establish the new farmers and so that we can give these new farmers the ability to survive during the first four to five months and four to five years.]
It is impossible for a new farmer, in the difficult farming conditions of South Africa, to survive the economic problems, the droughts and all that comes to a farmer. If we do not have remedies for that, I am sorry, but we will not succeed in establishing new farmers.
Groot boere het die vermoë om te oorleef omdat hulle ‘n infrastruktuur opgebou het. Jong boere het staatsgeld nodig wat die staat bereid moet wees om op billike wyse af te skryf sodat nuwe boere gevestig kan word en suksesvol kan wees.
Ek steun die wetsontwerp en hoop dat die amptenare oor gouer as vyf jaar ‘n nuwe wetsontwerp sal skryf waarin al die aksies van grondhervorming in een aksie aangepak word en dat dit naastenby soos die ou landboukredietwet sal wees. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Large farmers have the ability to survive, because they have built up an infrastructure. Young farmers need government funds that the state should be prepared to write off in a reasonable manner so that new farmers could be established and achieve success.
I support the Bill and hope that the officials will draft a new Bill in less than five years in which all the actions of land reform are tackled at once and that it would be more or less like the old agricultural credit Act. [Applause.]]
Mr G B BHENGU: Madam Speaker and the hon House, I am grateful to be able to speak after the former Minister, Dr Van Niekerk. From his address, it has become clear that he was able, during his time as Minister, to create a mechanism which was able to sustain white commercial farmers. He is giving the Minister the task of creating a mechanism through which aspirant black farmers can graduate so as to be commercial farmers. They were given loans which ended up as being free and they are failing even to repay a loan without interest, because the government of that time did it for political purposes. It is good that it comes from his mouth that it is going to be very difficult for black aspirant farmers, because they will be required to compete with them. Whereas they had a free lunch for years, now our black farmers are expected to compete with them in this world, or global economy.
The IFP supports the Bill as it aims to consolidate and rationalise pieces of legislation that regulate the agricultural debt created by the Agricultural Credit Act. We applaud the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs for putting its house in order, so that precise and efficient management of this debt is effected. This will prompt proper recycling of money that was regulated by the remnants of repealed legislation.
What is more important about this Bill is that the debt will not be be written off automatically, but will still remain owing on the part of the debtors. That will in turn assist other farmers or agricultural co- operatives needing funds to develop and maintain their agricultural activities. We also believe that it must specifically be used for development purposes, so that the aspirant farmers could be able to find assistance from this fund.
We would like to appeal to the Ministry and the department that it will neither be politically nor economically expedient to rush headlong with the transfer of surplus money to the National Revenue Fund. I am sure that there will be so much surplus money within the next few years since there is a lot of redress in terms of funding of the aspirant and the emerging farmers, especially the Africans. Experience has shown that it is not easy to get back money that has been transferred to the National Revenue Fund, because the Department of Finance, in terms of its national budgetary needs, prioritises it.
We are therefore also pleased to note that the Bill aims at ensuring that the agricultural debt account is properly audited, so that all moneys in this account are used in accordance with proper business plans. This will serve to ensure that value for money is derived from the expanded fund.
The IFP believes that the repayment of the moneys owed by the creditors should not depend on how agricultural production fared during the period of the loan or receiving assistance from the fund. It will not be in accordance with the loan to derive a return to help other needy people in future, but it will be an ``operation hunger’’ type of loan. A loan is supposed to be repaid, no matter what the level of production output for which it was loaned. It is a debt, not a handout. It should, therefore, be treated as such. The IFP supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this particular measure. What I would like to highlight is that if one looks at the original Act, the Agricultural Credit Act, Act 28 of 1966, which has been amended no fewer than 18 times subsequently by various other Acts, there is a note in this copy from Juta’s, which says the following:
Note: This Act, as it had applied to the own affairs of the House of Assembly, was made applicable throughout the Republic …
The point I want to make is that the facility that was provided in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1966 was exclusively for white people. Another law was created to assist coloured people, by the erstwhile Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, which created a body known as the Coloured Persons’ Agricultural Assistance Board. One is grateful that we are rationalising all these Acts.
One of the highlights regarding this Bill before us is something the chairperson of the portfolio committee alluded to, that there was total agreement that the funds generated from the collection of the debt should be utilised for agricultural development programmes. What we had in mind here was to help the new entrants on the road to becoming successful farmers, a very important development supported by all parties.
We are given to understand that the current credit balance in this particular debt management account is R837 million. Of course, this amount is supposed to grow because there are still outstanding debts. But I notice that the orange light is flickering already. I just quickly want to tell the hon the Minister that the other processes through which upcoming new entrants can be assisted are basically the commercial banks and the Land Bank. In order to assist people on the road to becoming successful farmers, we will seriously have to look at certain mechanisms. I am not pleading for the return of the Agricultural Credit Act, but I believe that something will have to be done in order to assist new entrants who unfortunately do not qualify.
Furthermore, as far as the Land Bank is concerned, I think that the questions that are asked when one applies for a loan are onerous, and we should also look at that.
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Mev die Speaker, ons het gehoor die Wetsontwerp op die Bestuur van Landbouskuld vervang die ou Wet op Landboukrediet en die ou Landboukredietraad.
Die agb Minister het ook gesê dié wetsontwerp bevat ‘n klousule wat die Regering magtig om skuld af te skryf. Agb lede het ook gehoor die skuld waarvan ons hier praat, beloop sowat R837 miljoen.
Die VF vra dat dié skuld afgeskryf moet word, want die vraag is: Hoekom nie? Landbou is een van die grootste werkverskaffingsektore in ons land. Die landbou is die enigste sektor wat vir ons kos op die tafel sit; hy is die voedselvoorsiener. Die dag as die landbou nie meer gesond is nie, dreig ‘n volk om te begin honger ly. As daar vrae is oor die R837 miljoen, kan ons met reg sê: Kom ons kyk na plaaslike regering. Met die oorgang van 1993 na 1994 is miljarde rande skuld van swart plaaslike regerings eenvoudig afgeskryf. Tans is die uitstaande skuld van mense wat nie vir hul water en dienste betaal nie, meer as R12 miljard. Dit is meer as die totale verdedigingsbegroting van Suid-Afrika. Die sentrale ANC-regering skryf van tyd tot tyd eenvoudig van dié skuld af.
Daarom sê die VF boere se skuld moet ook afgeskryf word. Die landbousektor is afhanklik van die natuur en word bedreig deur droogtes, en daarom is dit nie altyd in die hande van boere nie. Dit is nie altyd as gevolg van swak bestuur dat skuld oploop nie. Daarom vra ons dat dié skuld afgeskryf word. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Madam Speaker, we have heard that the Agricultural Debt Management Bill replaces the old Agricultural Credit Act and the old Agricultural Credit Board.
The hon the Minister also said that this Bill contained a clause authorising the Government to write off debt. Hon members have also heard that the debt that we are talking about here amounts to approximately R837 million.
The FF wants to ask that this debt should be written off, because the question is: Why not? Agriculture is one of the largest providers of employment in our country. Agriculture is the only sector that puts food on the table for us; it is the food supplier. The day that agriculture is no longer sound, a nation is threatened with starvation.
If there are questions about the R837 million debt we may very well say: Let us look at local government. With the transition from 1993 to 1994 billions of rands in debt of black local authorities were simply written off. At present the outstanding debt of people who do not pay for their water and services is over R12 billion. This is more than South Africa’s entire defence budget. The central ANC Government simply writes off this debt from time to time.
That is why the FF says the debt of farmers should also be written off. The agricultural sector at the mercy of nature and is threatened by droughts, and therefore it is not always in the hands of farmers. It is not always owing to poor management that debts accumulate. We therefore ask that this debt should be written off.]
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, we as the UCDP wish to register our party’s view with regard to the Agricultural Debt Management Bill by initially applauding all the relevant stakeholders consulted, who contributed and continue to provide sound advice as to how the Bill in its current form can be improved and thus made effective in achieving its stated objectives.
We also want to emphasize that since the Bill seeks to rationalise and consolidate the different remnants of pieces of legislation dealing with agricultural debt in its various forms, certain parts of the Bill in its current state require a rethink by the committee.
The area that I am referring to concerns clause 4(2)(d) and reads as follows:
… any amount appropriated by Parliament for agricultural or other purposes must be transferred to the National Revenue Fund …
Furthermore, clause 5 of the Bill is not only problematic in our view but, it would seem, is inimical to achieving the broader aims and objectives of the Bill, as it would disempower the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs and deny it the much-needed revenue or resources to fund the already cash-strapped agricultural development project, particularly support to emerging farmers whose needs are diverse.
We further have to point out that our main concern with the identified clause that seeks to empower the National Revenue Fund to receive any surplus amount accrued from Agricultural Debt Management is that this clause creates a situation whereby, once the National Revenue Fund receives any transfers, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to redirect the money back to the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs to fund relevant agricultural projects.
The UCDP supports the Bill. However, we would have preferred that clauses 4 and 5 were drafted in such a manner that funds collected would be made available to the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs for the developmental programme of emerging farmers. On the whole the Bill is desirable and should be supported by all and sundry. [Time expired.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, the PAC supports the Agricultural Debt Management Bill. One of its purposes is to establish the Agricultural Debt Account and to provide for the use of this account as a mechanism to manage agricultural debt repayment.
The Agricultural Debt Management Bill is to replace the Agricultural Credit Act of 1966. This Act used to provide assistance to persons carrying on or undertaking to carry on farming operations and used to exercise control in respect of the assistance rendered.
The PAC understands that in spite of the cessation of the credit delivery function, there are still outstanding debts in the form of financial assistance which have been rendered in terms of the Act, and are still to be paid. The Bill provides for the continuation and administration of the Agricultural Credit Account, which shall now be known as the Agricultural Debt Account in accordance with this Bill on debt collection. It is critically important that debt repayment be made so that the utilisation of funds in the account for agricultural development and finance purposes, in accordance with a business plan, can be submitted to the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance.
The PAC, however, would have been happier to see this Bill putting emphasis on assisting especially African farmers who were denied opportunities to farm, by being subsidised and well trained. The future of farming and the success of agriculture largely depend on farmers who are local investors and have nowhere to go. At present a number of African farmers are poorly assisted. Without financial assistance for them from the Government the future of agriculture in this country and food production are being endangered.
Mnr A J BOTHA: Agb Speaker, agb Minister, die bespreking in die portefeuljekomitee oor hierdie wetsontwerp het ‘n eenparige begeerte geïdentifiseer. Dit is die begeerte om soveel fondse as moontlik vir grondhervorming en die vestiging van ontluikende boere beskikbaar te stel. Indien die reëls ons verhoed het om die kapitaal betrokke by hierdie fondse spesifiek vir die doel te eien, dan is hierdie eenparige begeerte van al die lede van al die partye tog dat ons daarin geslaag het om die belang van en die moontlikheid van doelgerigte samewerking te beklemtoon. Sulke samewerking sal vorentoe broodnodig wees om ‘n sukses te maak van grondhervorming, wat in sy wese ‘n ingewikkelde fisieke proses is met ‘n veelvoud van fasette.
‘n Wyse persoon en gesoute boer van die Noord-Kaap - ‘n vriend van my kollega dr Van Niekerk - het die kern van die saak soos volg saamgevat: ``Dit is maklik om ‘n mens te maak, maar om ‘n boer van ‘n mens te maak, is ‘n ander saak.’’ Dit is ironies dat die mens eintlik belangriker is as die grond wanneer ons praat van grondhervorming. Die grond is maar altyd daar, dit is die toegang van die mens tot enige besondere stuk grond en die gehalte van daardie toegang wat belangrik is.
Die gehalte van toegang word deur verskeie faktore bepaal. Eerstens moet die projek ekonomies haalbaar wees. Tweedens moet die mens bemagtig word. ‘n Ondernemer word gebore en verg slegs geleenthede om te ontwikkel. Die meeste van ons is egter nie inherent ondernemers nie en kan alleenlik bemagtig word deur bestuursvaardighede aan te leer. Sonder die bestuursvaardighede is die toegang ook onder standaard en gedoem tot mislukking. Derdens moet aanvaar word dat die proses om ‘n onreg van die verlede reg te stel ‘n kunsmatige proses is en dus kunsmatige steun vereis om die toegang te laat slaag. ‘n Reeds moeilike proses word nog moeiliker gemaak deur ‘n ongunstige ekonomiese klimaat waarin boere opereer. Dit is algemeen bekend dat die aantal boere jaarliks verminder as gevolg van hierdie situasie en die ekonomiese insinking wat volg op die terreuraanslag in Amerika en elders sal sekerlik nie van veel hulp wees nie.
Net soos die wêreld reageer op daardie tragedie deur saam te staan om internasionale terrorisme die hoof te bied, net so moet ons na ons ongunstige ekonomiese situasie kyk om te sien of ons dit nie kan gebruik om ‘n verskeidenheid van behoeftes aan te spreek nie. Staatsinmenging om ekonomiese toestande te ondervang, het in die verlede al meer kwaad as goed gedoen en moet sekerlik vermy word, veral wanneer dit markkragte verwring. Terselfdertyd het ons reeds besluit om grondhervorming te bewerkstellig met ingryping en moet ons nou probeer om iets positief te haal uit ‘n negatiewe ekonomiese situasie.
Ons kan dit doen deur alle dreigende plaasinsolvensies te beskou as ‘n geleentheid vir grondhervorming. In stede daarvan dat sulke boerderye ontbind word by wyse van uitverkoping, kan hulle as lopende eenhede oorgeneem word. Dit kan gedoen word deur die skuldlas oor te neem en die rolverdeling van alle deelnemers op die plaas op sy kop om te keer.
So word die huidige werknemers aspirantboere, terwyl die huidige boer ‘n aspirantbestuurder word vir die onderneming, en optree as instrukteur vir aspirantboere. Die vee en die losgoed bly net so op die plaas, wat die koste van grondhervorming dramaties kan verlaag.
So ‘n proses kan vinnig en op ‘n baie groot skaal in werking gestel word. Dit sal nie alleen ‘n groot bydrae kan maak tot die normalisering van landbou nie, maar ook meewerk om landbou meer mededingend te maak.
Hierdie is slegs een van vele planne wat op die tafel is en wat baie goed kan werk, maar almal van hulle sal geweldig baie kapitaal verg. Aangesien ons in hierdie amendement nie daarin kan slaag om die kapitaal te help vaslê vir landbou en vir hierdie doel nie, vra ek die Parlement om by die volgende geleentheid wanneer ons oor hierdie pos stem dit in gedagte te hou en dan nie suinig te wees om die nodige kapitaal beskikbaar te stel vir landbou en grondhervorming nie. Dit sal van ons ‘n voorbeeld in Afrika kan maak in stede van een van die probleemgevalle. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr A J BOTHA: Hon Speaker, hon Minister, the discussion in the portfolio committee on this Bill identified a unanimous desire. That is the desire to make available as much funding as possible for land reform and the establishment of emerging farmers. If the rules prevent us from identifying the capital involved in this funding specifically for this purpose, the unanimous desire of all the members of all the parties is then that we should succeed in emphasising the importance and the possibility of purposeful co-operation. Such co-operation will be essential in the future to make a success of land reform, which is in essence a complicated physical process with a multitude of facets.
A wise person and experienced farmer from the Northern Cape - a friend of my colleague Dr Van Niekerk - captured the essence of the matter as follows: ``It is easy to make a person, but to make a farmer out of a person is another matter.’’ It is ironic that people are actually more important than land when we talk about land reform. Land is simply always there. It is the access of people to any particular piece of land and the quality of that access which is important.
The quality of access is determined by various factors. Firstly, the project must be economically attainable. Secondly, people must be empowered. An entrepreneur is born and requires only opportunities to develop. However, most of us are not natural entrepreneurs and can only be empowered by acquiring management skills. Without management skills the access is then also below standard and doomed to failure.
Thirdly, it must be accepted that the process to rectify an injustice of the past is an artificial process and therefore requires artificial support to allow the access to succeed. An already difficult process is made even more difficult by an unfavourable economic climate in which farmers operate. It is generally known that the number of farmers is declining annually as a result of this situation and the economic recession following the terror attack in America and elsewhere will certainly not do much to assist the situation. In the same way that the world is reacting to that tragedy by standing together to combat international terrorism, we must look at our unfavourable economic climate to see whether we cannot use it to address a variety of needs. State interference to intervene in economic conditions has done more harm than good in the past and must certainly be avoided, particularly when it distorts market forces. At the same time, we have already decided to achieve land reform by way of intervention and we must now try to get something positive out of a negative economic situation.
We can do this by viewing all potential farm insolvencies as an opportunity for land reform. Instead of such farms being dissolved by being sold off, they can be taken over as active units. This can be done by taking over the debt and by reversing the role of all participants on the farm.
In this way the current employees become aspiring farmers, while the current farmer becomes an aspiring manager for the undertaking, and acts as an instructor for aspiring farmers. The livestock and movable property remain as they are on the farm, which can drastically reduce the costs of land reform.
Such a process can be set in operation quickly and on a very large scale. It will not only be able to make a large contribution to the normalisation of agriculture, but can also assist in making agriculture more competitive.
This is but one of many plans which are on the table and which can work very well, but all of them will require a great deal of capital. As we were unable in this amendment to help acquire the capital for agriculture and for this purpose, I ask Parliament to bear this in mind next time we vote on this Vote and then not to be miserly in making the necessary capital available for agriculture and land reform. This would allow us to be an example in Africa, instead of one of the problem cases. [Applause.]]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, being the largest economy on the continent, South Africa is made up of diverse societies and economic markets. Though renowned for its rich mineral resources, namely diamonds, our economy has been left to cope with the poverty and inequality imposed upon us by colonialism and the apartheid era.
The MF acknowledges the financial assistance that has been given to farmers. This Bill facilitates an account for the collection of such debts. The provisions made appear to provide direction and clarity, which clearly makes available better management of the agricultural debt. Further organisation and management appears to be in place concerning the administration of such moneys.
It is important that transparency is present to ensure the effective and efficient management of these funds that shall be convened via regular auditing and reporting on the account. The MF suggests an occasional check by an independent body to ensure that this is maintained and correctly instituted. Not only would this be a mechanism to avoid corruption, but it would also ensure the success of this programme.
The MF supports sustainable development in all industries and sees the provision to utilise these funds for agricultural debt as a means to accomplish this. The advancement of the industry would be to the advantage of all, as would proper management.
The Bill appears to institute good management for the collection of agricultural debt, and certainly makes allowance for the industry via this management. The MF supports the Agricultural Debt Management Bill. [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, there is a well-known bumper sticker one often
sees on the bakkies of farmers that go: ``My hart is in die boerdery en my
what-you-may-call-it' is in die skuld''. [My heart is in farming but my
what-you-may-call-it’ is in debt.] This is more than a mere bumper
sticker. It reflects the situation of most of the farmers in South Africa.
Die skuld-bate verhouding in kommersiële landbou is tans baie ongesond. ‘n Groot deel daarvan is buite die beheer van die boer. Oneweredige eskalasie van pryse dra grootliks daartoe by. In 1974 kon jy ‘n tenk van 2 200 liter diesel koop vir die prys van een ton mielies. Vandag moet ‘n boer agt ton verkoop om sy tenk vol te maak.
Onbillike kompetisie met regeringsgesubsideerde produkte vanuit die buiteland en natuurrampe soos siektes, vloede, droogtes en veldbrande het die situasie in die jongste tyd verder vererger. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The debt-asset ratio in commercial farming is currently very unhealthy. A great part thereof is beyond the farmer’s control. Unequal escalation of prices contributes largely to this. In 1974 one could buy 2 200 litres of diesel for the price of one ton of maize. Today a farmer must sell eight tons in order to buy this amount of diesel.
Unfair competition with government-subsidised products from foreign countries and natural disasters like diseases, floods, droughts and veld fires have aggravated the situation recently.]
The AEB realises that the termination of the credit function of the Agricultural Credit Board could have created a vacuum with respect to a legislative framework for debt collection. It is also clear to us that a framework which can facilitate the integrated management of the financing instruments of the Department of Agriculture is now needed. Against this background, the AEB supports this Bill.
But a mere administrative arrangement is not enough. We must go one step further and look at arrangements or perhaps new legislation that can help commercial farmers stay in production without a debt load that makes it impossible to continue farming in a productive way.
The paramount role commercial farmers are playing in the stabilisation of the whole country cannot be overemphasised. They play a vital role in the rural economy. A healthy commercial agricultural sector is one of the biggest weapons against unemployment.
Dit is absoluut noodsaaklik om bestaande boere op hul plase te hou en om met billike finansiering te help om geleenthede vir nuwe boere te skep.
Daarom pleit ons dat fondse wat onder hierdie nuwe wet gewin sal word, primêr aangewend sal word om billike finansiering vir die kommersiële boer daar te stel, met ‘n spesifieke voorkeur aan boere wat deur groot natuurrampe getref is en nuwe opkomende boere.
Die AEB steun hierdie wetsontwerp en vertrou dat dit vir hierdie doeleindes aangewend sal word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[It is absolutely essential to keep existing farmers on their farms and to assist with reasonable financing to help create opportunities for new farmers.
That is why we are appealing for new funds that will be gained by this new legislation to be applied primarily to establish reasonable financing for commercial farmers, with farmers that were hit by large-scale natural disasters and new emerging farmers receiving preference.
The AEB supports this Bill and trusts that it will be applied to these ends.]
Mr M A MAPHALALA: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the ANC to support the Bill. I support the Bill for two main reasons. The first is that it provides a better mechanism of administering the collection of debts and credits. Secondly, I support the Bill because of what other speakers have already mentioned. For the first time in the history of this country this Bill closes the gap between blacks generally, and Africans in particular, and other races in this country.
One issue that is perhaps clear to us is the reflection of members who have participated in the portfolio committee. If one listened very carefully, those who have been active in this portfolio committee understood the explanation and objectives of this Bill and, as a result, all of them gave their support.
Few members who spoke here raised questions that were dealt with, but unfortunately some members did not participate in the portfolio committee deliberations. The questions that they posed were addressed and we received satisfactory responses. We further satisfied ourselves by interrogating the Bill itself.
The hon Dr Van Niekerk, a frequent participant in the committee, raised the issue of land reforms. There are two main activities that are to take place in this country. A conference will be held next month and I am sure that if time allowed the Minister would have addressed this issue. This conference will deal precisely with the question of land reform and appropriately address the issue of Africans who did not have access to land.
This question can be addressed by way of debt and credit but this is not adequate. The issue here is whether land is available for people to utilise, enabling them to access the finances that are provided. The Government is addressing this issue. I want to inform the Minister and the director-general that in terms of this Government’s and Parliament’s policy, which is to provide a better life for all, they are on course. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Mr M J ELLIS: A better life for the ANC Government! That is what you are about all the time. What about the other people?
Mr M A MAPHALALA: We discussed issues with the hon Ditshetelo out there very well and we agreed that he should consider joining the ANC. One of the things that he should probably do before he addresses a Bill or legislation, is to understand the provisions in that legislation. This Bill precisely addresses the issue of the appropriation of these funds. It states that Parliament shall appropriate these funds and allocate them on the basis of a plan which is provided by the department. This plan will tell us where this money is going to be utilised. These questions are addressed and the hon member’s concerns are dealt with. The member should join us in fully supporting this Bill without any doubts. [Applause.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Why don’t you join the UCDP? [Laughter.]
Mr M A MAPHALALA: Mr Groenewald raised the issue of writing off debts. One of the reasons I support this Bill is because it provides a very clean and neat mechanism for administering the funds. We will not support an anarchic situation of writing off debts. The Bill does stipulate exactly at what stage and under which conditions one writes off debts. This question is also addressed. Therefore, I want to appeal to the House that this Bill should follow the route which the participants in the committee took, where members gave their support, because we believe it addresses the current issues we face in this country. [Applause.]
UNGQONGQOSHE WEZOLIMO NEZEMIHLABA: Somlomo, ngiyethemba ukuthi bakhona abantu abazotolika njengoba kade ngicelile ngathi uma sengiphendula ngizophendula ngolimi lwakubo kamama nolimi lwakubo kababa - isiSwati nesiZulu.
Mayelana nenkulumo ebekwe ngamalungu aleli Komidi lezoLimo nezemiHlaba, kucace kamhlophe ukuthi njengamalungu ekomidi abebheka lo Mthetho, kube khona ukuvumelana. Ngibonile-ke futhi ukuthi nokho zikhona ezinye izincomo amanye amalungu ekomidi abethanda ukuzibeka yize sekwaba khona lesi sivumelwano. Kodwa kubalulekike futhi ukuthi sikusho ukuthi ezinye zalezi zincomo aziphathelene nje nomthetho kuphela kepha ziphathelene nokuthi singazithuthukisa kanjani ezolimo, ikakhulukazi kulabo abasafufusayo; nanokuthi singazesekela kanjani ezolimo singuHulumeni ukuze abalimi okuyibona ababhekana nenkinga kumbe umshikashika wokuthi basinikeze ukudla babe nendlela engconywana yokuthi bakwazi ukusisiza kulokho futhi bangabi nezikweleti eziningi.
Ngiyabonga-ke ikakhulukazi kusihlalo wekomidi ngendlela awabeke ngayo amazwi akhe lapha. Kuye kwacaca ukuthi uyasho naye ukuthi lo Mthetho uyingxenye yalezo zinto esizama ukuziguqula ukuze ezolimo zikwazi ukuthuthuka. Lo Mthetho masingawuboni njengoMthetho omi wodwana mayelana nokwelekelela abalimi ngezimali. Masikhumbule ukuthi ukhona omunye uMthetho esisazowuletha lapha, ozobhekana nekomidi kungekudala, okunguMthetho obhekana nokuguqula isimo seBhange lezoLimo nezemiHlaba. (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.) [The MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, I hope that interpreters are available because I made a note that I would be replying in my mother tongue and my father tongue, which are Swati and Zulu.
Regarding the speech delivered by members of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, it was clear that they agreed as people who have been looking at this Bill. I have noticed that there are recommendations made by members of the committee even though there is this agreement. It is also important to mention that the recommendations are not just about this Bill only, they are also about how we can develop agriculture, especially small farmers. It is about how we as the Government can support agriculture so that farmers, as they have the challenge of supplying us with food, can do that and not carry huge debts.
I would like to thank the chairperson of the committee for the way he spoke here. It became clear that he too believes that this Bill is part of those things that we are trying to change in the agricultural sector. We should note that we are going to present another Bill here. The committee will look at it soon. The Bill will be about changing the system of the Land Bank.]
Legislation will be coming before this House which in part deals with the issues of agricultural finance and matters that need to be reviewed regarding the Land and Agricultural Development Bank. Clearly, as we examine this legislation we all need to ask ourselves if there is room or a lacuna that is left to deal with some of the challenges of agricultural development in this country and, if so, what needs to be done.
If some of these things cannot be done in terms of the Land and Agricultural Development Bank Act, what would be the new instruments that will be required? These are some of the matters that hon members raised. We might have to review some of the processes as we proceed with implementation and determine whether or not new instruments have to be put in place. But, all in all, members supported the proposed Bill that we have presented to this House.
Ngitsandza kuphindze ngisho kutsi lendzaba yesikweledi lebekwe nguMnu Groenewald nakitsi ibalulekile kakhulu. Ngiyakuvisisa kutsi kufanele akhulume kanjalo ngobe ulilunga lePhalamende nje ngobe umelele labo bantfu labamkhetsa, ikakhulu labo labavelana nemgomo wenhlangano yakhe. Akungikhatsati-ke mine kutsi uvele wasukuma lapha watsi akanawukhuluma yena ngalomTsetfo, kutsi yebo uyawuva, kodvwa ufuna nje kutsi sicedze sikweledi nome ngabe kwente njani, sikhohlwe kutsi kukhona lokonakele.
Maye bekungaba mnandzi kube besingakhona kukwenta loko! Bekungaba mnandzi futsi kube besingakwenta loko futsi sikwente kubo bonke bantfu labanetikweledi. Mhlawumbe lesikweledi lesikhuluma ngaso lamuhla sikweledi salabamhlophe. Kodvwa-ke bantfu lababuya etindzaweni letifana nemaphakatsi yeKwaZulu-Natal, eNorth West, e-Eastern Cape kanye nakuletinye tindzawo bayati kutsi nebantfu labamnyama kunesikweledi labanaso labasitfola kuletinhlangano tekutfutfukisa. Nalapho sitsi asisebentise umtsetfo lofanako wekutsi umuntfu lonesikweledi akasibhadale kuHulumende.
Kodvwa sibuye sitsi kunendlela lebekwe nguloMtsetfo wetetimali, i-Public Finance Management Act, lechazako kutsi nangabe sifuna kubolekisa ngemali yini lesiyibukako. Kwekucala lesikubukako kutsi lomuntfu lona utakuba nayo yini indlela yekusibhadala lesikwekedi, nekutsi uhleti angasibhadali lesikweledi nje uyatsandza yini nome kukhona tinkinga lanato.
Kwesibili sibuka kutsi nasilandza lesikweledi ingabe sitawuzuza yini kumbe sitawulahlekelwa yimali ngekulandzelana nalabotiki kanye nabozuka lesikweledwa bona. Konkhe loko siyaye sikubuke bese-ke ekugcineni siyabuka kutsi ingabe singenta njani.
Ngikhuluma nje kulomnyaka lophelile sesule sikweledi lesibalelwa ku R6 million. Ngako-ke ngitawucela kuMnu Groenewald kutsi akatjele labomnakabo kutsi ababhadale lemali. Nami ngayibhadala leyo mali naloku ngangingesiye umlimi futsi nebakitsi bangazane bayitfole, kodvwa labomnakabo Mnu Groenewald bona bahlomlile ngekuyitfola lemali. Namuhla-ke sale bayibuyisa ngobe nami sengifuna kuniketa laba bendlu lemnyama labangazange bakwati kuyitfola lemali ngaphambilini. [Tandla.] (Translation of siSwati paragraph follows).
[I would like to reiterate the fact that the issue of outstanding debt to which Mr Groenewald has referred is very important to us as well. I can understand why he is saying the things he is saying. He is a member of Parliament who was elected by and who represents people who identify with the policies of his party. The fact that he simply stood up here and said that he was not going to talk about this legislation does not bother me at all. Although he understands why such legislation is necessary, he wants us to write off the outstanding debt no matter what and forget about what has gone wrong.
How wonderful it would be if we could do just that! How wonderful it would be to do that with all the people who have an outstanding debt. Perhaps the debt we are talking about here today is the debt of white people. However, people who come from places such as the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands, the North West, the Eastern Cape and other places know that black people have an outstanding debt too which they incurred from the development corporations. In such cases, too, we need to apply the same priciple, that a person who has an outstanding debt must pay such debt to the Government.
There is a method which has been established by the Public Finance Management Act which explains what it is we have to look at when we give out loans. The first thing we look at is whether such a person will have the means to repay the debt, and if he or she is failing to pay, is he or she unwilling to do so or is he or she experiencing problems. Secondly, we look at whether recovering the outstanding debt will be a worthwhile exercise or whether we will lose more money trying to recover insignificant amounts of money. We look at all this and then decide what we should do.
Already, last year we wrote off an outstanding debt amounting to R6 million. I would therefore like to ask Mr Groenewald to request his brothers to pay their outstanding debt. I paid that debt even though I am not a farmer and my family never benefited from the scheme. Mr Groenewald’s brothers have benefited from it, therefore they need to pay it back so that I can give it to black people who have never received it in the past. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
NATIONAL PARKS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate) The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand before Members today to present a Bill which will truly aid the Government in fulfilling its constitutional obligation as required in section 24 of the Constitution.
As part of its mandate to provide public access to nationally protected areas, SA National Parks also has a statutory mandate to maintain a network of tourist facilities from which revenue, allocated to carry out its conservation activities, is sourced. At present the land area under protection in South Africa is about 6%, which is short of the IUCM recommended minimum of 10%.
While the Government is financially committed to assisting SA National Parks with the acquisition of land for new parks and the consolidation of existing ones, available resources within Government will always be severely limited. In this context of constrained governmental resources the role played by a number of conservation NGOs, national and international, as well as private individuals, has necessarily come to play a crucial role in assisting both SA National Parks and the Government to fulfil our constitutional mandate to protect our environment - … for the benefit of present and future generations …
The significance of these private contributions or donations should not be underestimated. Since 1994 that financial assistance has subsidised SA National Parks’ acquisition of five new parks, as well as thousands of hectares of land which consolidate existing new parks such as the Addo, the Mountain Zebra, Karoo and Marekele national parks.
Currently SA National Parks is registered as an enterprise in terms of the VAT Act. As a result, the board of SA National Parks has to pay VAT on any consideration it receives in relation to its supply of goods and services. The statutory definition of consideration includes any payment for the supply of goods and services, whether in money or otherwise and whether voluntary or not.
Thus SA National Parks, being statutorily considered an enterprise, is charged VAT on all its activities carried out in the furtherance of its aims and objectives in which goods or services are supplied for consideration. Accordingly, special donations and sponsorships received by SA National Parks are legally subject to VAT because they are regarded as a consideration and therefore subject to the VAT Act.
An opinion from the SA Revenue Service states that special donations and sponsorships to SA National Parks would legally continue to be subject to VAT, because it does not qualify as ``an association not for gain’’ as defined in the VAT Act. In the interim, and on condition that this parliamentary process to amend the National Parks Act was engaged, the Commissioner of Revenue recognised the anomalies that were occurring as a result of the application of the letter of the law and exercised his statutory discretion, provided for in section 72 of the VAT Act, and granted SA National Parks a tax exemption from the application of the VAT Act.
This concession gave SA National Parks the informal and de facto status of an association not for gain. In doing so, the commissioner highlighted the fact that, should this condition not be complied with, the ruling granting SA National Parks the concession would be withdrawn retrospectively. The above historical account serves to give the context within which this rational and legally necessary decision to amend the Act was taken.
Compliance with the relevant provision in the VAT Act will mean that SA National Parks must, upon winding up or liquidation, transfer all its remaining assets, after satisfaction of its liabilities, to a society, association or organisation which has similar objects. If Parliament approves this amendment to section 18 of the National Parks Act, the tax effect will be that SA National Parks will legally not be required to pay VAT on its special donations and sponsorships.
This amendment will ensure that SA National Parks gets the full benefit of the financial and in kind donations which, as I have already indicated, are crucial for both the management of SA National Parks and the acquisition of additional land. But, perhaps more importantly, in the face of intensive competition for scarce governmental financial assistance it is important that SA National Parks should not have to allocate its scarce cash resource to Government to be used for purposes other than that intended by the donor. [Applause.]
Ms G L MAHLANGU: Madam Speaker, Minister Moosa, members, ladies and gentlemen, on first sight of this amending Bill the words of our former President, Nelson Mandela, at the launch of the Kruger National Park centenary celebrations on 26 March 1998 rang clearly in my ears. I quote as follows.
If we are to succeed in fully realising the potential of ecotouriom to contribute to development, it will be by embracing the spirit of partnership that underlies all our achievements as a newly liberated nation.
A new generation of leaders has the responsibility for enhancing conservation and public service standards. Theirs is the task of bringing together all stakeholders in a broad partnership.
The private sector, whose generosity made this event possible, has a major role to play, whether it be through the promotion of conservation, direct assistance in the upliftment of communities neighbouring on parks, or as business with an interest in the sustainable growth of the industry.
The financial statements of the SA National Parks speak volumes of this generosity by private benefactors, taking section 24 of our Constitution to heart and literally putting their money where their mouths are, in order, firstly, to protect the environment for the benefit of present and future generations through various measurers, amongst others preventing ecological degradation; secondly, to promote conservation; and thirdly, to secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
This is the constitutionally entrenched right of every citizen of South
Africa, to which private benefactors donated R16,1 million in the year 1999
to 2000, R9,1 million in the year 2000 to 2001, and R600 000 in the current
year. It is a contribution of such significance and importance for the long-
term development and conservation of our biodiversity that a whole section
on finance and resources under the theme Building a Secure Financial
Future'' is being set aside and subjected to extensive discussion at the
Fifth World Parks Congress to be held in Durban in the year 2003. The theme
of that congressBenefits without Boundaries’’ could not have been more
appropriate either as we debate in support of the National Parks Amendment
Bill today.
Established in 1976 through the National Parks Act, the key objectives of SA National Parks have not only been the protection and conservation of our biodiversity, but have also played an important role in the employment of people in local communities, the maximisation of possibilities for the creation of employment in rural areas, as well as in key socioeconomic areas in the regions within which they exist, such as education, health, empowerment and many other sectors.
Whilst the ANC recognises that the establishment and maintenance of national parks are important and that these need to be conserved, it also recognises the integral part they play in national development through tourism, job creation and education.
Before the advent of the current democratic dispensation in South Africa, nature conservation was used as an instrument of oppression. It was mainly used as a means to maintain control of Africa’s natural resources, firstly against the indigenous African communities, and secondly amongst the forces of oppression as they sought to restrict natural resources for the benefit of a few.
Since 1994, however, South Africa has embarked on a path of sustainable development, focusing on meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Acknowledging that it is the poor that bear the burden of bad environmental practice, the ANC focused on transforming the management of our natural environment. Our commitment to sustainable development has enabled us to adopt and implement a position in terms of which we place our people and their needs on the forefront of conservation to serve physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably.
Underpinned by environmental justice, environmental governance and biodiversity management, we recognise that a prosperous, environmentally conscious nation depends on people who are in harmonious coexistence with the natural environment and derive lasting benefit from the conservation and sustainable use of its rich biodiversity.
In this regard I wish to applaud the proactive approach with which SA National Parks approached this predicament, and the effective and bold manner in which it embarked on future public-private partnerships, as illustrated by its commercialisation programme.
It is significant to note that the concessions for the restaurants, lodges, retail shops and picnic sites were designed in such a way as to totally eliminate and avoid corruption within the allocation of these concessions. In the Kruger, Kgalagadi, Golden Gate and Addo parks, lodges were put up for concession in a manner that was transparent and widely applauded. The construction of these lodges, by means of a building operator and transfer system over 20 years, not only ensured that our crown jewels landed in the hands of private sector companies, but vastly revalued the properties upwards to a figure of some R200 million.
Further key criteria for successful bidding were the demonstration of significant empowerment to the local communities, the demonstration of a procurement process, shareholding for the communities in future and affirmative action that ensures local communities will become part of the management of these operations in our parks. It is for this reason that the ANC wishes to reward SA National Parks in ways which would assist them to travel the hard path of future sound financial administration with more ease, by recommending that the National Parks Amendment Bill be passed in this House.
As we met last week as extremely proud Southern Africans at the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park, the largest conservation area in the world, an awareness of the heavy responsibility that rests on our shoulders was underlined, a responsibility to ensure that the legal and regulatory framework within which the institutions facilitating this remarkable achievement operate is in tandem with our vision for transparent, efficient and effective governance. The adoption of the National Parks Amendment Bill therefore makes not only administrative sense, but lies at the heart of the economic principles driving the prosperity of our national parks.
With the legacy and physical evidence of underdevelopment manifesting itself all around us, no argument can be made that justifies nondelivery through slow transformation of the bureaucratic framework that sets the playing field for institutions such as the SA National Parks that we employ ultimately to deliver on the rightful demands of citizens who entrusted us with the realisation of their aspirations during the last two elections.
As mentioned in the state of the nation address by the President earlier this year, we have identified tourism as requiring special attention owing to its potential to contribute significantly to the objectives of higher growth rates and job creation. This Bill will ensure that these objectives are met and that moneys made available to the national parks by beneficiaries can be utilised and invested sensibly and without delay, to improve current facilities and further enhance the position of SA National Parks as prime tourist destinations within South Africa.
I wish to thank the Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service for his discretion with regard to this matter during the past two years, allowing a period in which SA National Parks did not have to pay VAT on these donations and sponsorships. I believe that this is indicative of the sense of commitment and responsibility that is being displayed within Government towards ensuring the preservation of our national treasures for the benefit of all South Africans and our future generations. Re a loboga, Tona. [Thank you, Minister.] [Applause.]
Mr E K MOORCROFT: Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to follow on the hon Gwen Mahlangu who dealt with this Bill in the committee in her usual efficient and pleasant way.
The DP will be supporting this Bill and we do so because we not only believe it to be appropriate, but also because we are aware that SA National Parks is experiencing financial difficulties at the present time. The adoption of the Bill will, in some measure, assist SA National Parks in facing and, hopefully, in overcoming these difficulties.
For those of us who appreciate the importance of the role which SA National Parks plays in our national and international tourist industry, the knowledge that it is experiencing financial problems is cause for concern. This has special reference to our flagship national park, the Kruger. Not only is the Kruger our best loved and most visited park, but it is also a brand name in the international tourist industry.
Any damage done to the good name and reputation of the Kruger National Park will deal a severe body blow to our entire tourist industry. Indeed, damage done to any of our parks will also damage our precious natural heritage which, in terms of our commitment to the conservation of biodiversity, has its own special importance.
The hon the Minister is, of course, aware of these concerns. He will appreciate the desire of all South Africans that these concerns be addressed. We then see this Bill in that light and we approach it as such.
While the Bill seeks to relieve SA National Parks of making VAT payments on gifts and donations, thereby improving its overall cash flow, the hon the Minister’s response to certain related questions which arise will be much appreciated. These are the following. Firstly, there are concerns that since the state reduced its direct subsidisation of SA National Parks, that organisation has found it increasingly difficult to make ends meet and to maintain the high standards of excellence for which it was universally famous.
Put another way, there is concern that if SA National Parks has to spend more on the maintenance of standards than revenue received makes possible, then either standards will suffer or SA National Parks will go deeper into debt. Obviously, neither alternative is desirable. This problem has many ramifications and my colleague the hon Le Roux will be dealing with some of them later.
The second concern involves the sale of property or property rights belonging to SA National Parks to private individuals or companies. These sales involve mainly accommodation, catering and trading. The rationale behind this is that by relieving SA National Parks of these responsibilities, they will be able to get on with what they do best, which is the conservation of our wildlife resources, obviously also raising revenue at the same time.
While we in these benches support, in principle, what may be called the privatisation of the hospitality and trading industries in the parks, we would, at the same time, like the assurance from the hon the Minister that money so raised will not be used simply to balance the deficit in the books caused by the problems experienced with revenue flows.
If this is the case, then it could be likened to the selling of the family silver, simply to get SA National Parks out of debt. If, however, this money is to be used for the creative development of SA National Parks and the extension of exciting projects such as the creation of the transfrontier peace parks, then we would continue to support this privatisation programme with enthusiasm. Perhaps the hon the Minister would find time in his reply to deal with those two topics.
In closing, the DP supports any reasonable measures with SA National Parks that the hon the Minister might take to improve the financial position of SA National Parks. We do so because we are fully aware of SA National Parks’ importance in the conservation of our unique and invaluable national heritage, and in the development and expansion of our most exciting growing industry, which is tourism. We will be supporting this Bill. [Applause.]
Mrs L R MBUYAZI: Madam Speaker, the IFP supports the National Parks Amendment Bill. We have always agreed in Parliament that the tax base should be extended, and that it should never be eroded. In recent years the Sars has succeeded in bringing more people into tax nets. The Sars has always stepped up its efforts to make sure that all enterprises pay VAT. SA National Parks is also registered as an enterprise, although it is an enterprise of a very different kind. It is an enterprise that is devoted to a public benefit activity.
The national parks of South Africa are unique areas set aside for conservation and for the protection of our very special flora, fauna and biosphere. Although Government puts money into these great treasures of our land, that money is never enough. We need donations. The sheer quality of national parks encourage people to think about making donations. After all, our national parks are amongst the best in the world. The problem for donors was the 14% deduction for VAT. Clearly, as a public benefit activity, the national parks qualify to be exempted from VAT when donations are received. This is what is now being done. With the removal of this obstacle, the national parks will be able to keep all of the donations. This is a very positive development. All over the world natural sites are under pressure. Development and urban spread have left very little land for conservation.
As custodians of the earth which must be inherited by our children, we need to take care and preserve flora and provide space for the wild animals and creatures of our land. We need to do much more in this area for the sake of future generations. When we preserve our biosphere, conserve our plant species, and protect our animals, we provide both space and economic opportunity for the future. Nations that conserve will prosper and those that dispose their natural areas will suffer hardship.
The National Parks Amendment Bill shows everyone our enormous commitment to the great national parks in South Africa. Can I now call on donors to put their hands deep into their pockets, so that our national parks can prosper and be great legacies for the future? Biodiversity issues are a matter of local, national, regional and global concern. And with the majority of people in South Africa being poor, national parks will certainly promote economic development whilst addressing poverty and sustainable livelihood.
Lastly, I would also like to congratulate the Minister who has established the third peace park following the signing of the memorandum of understanding between South Africa and Lesotho to conserve the Maluti- Drakensberg mountains. This was to restore the pride of a mountain range divided by decades of colonialism. The Maluti-Drakensberg Peace Park is described as an integrative programme that includes the world heritage site. South Africa’s Ukhahlamba-Drakensberg conservation area that was inscribed on Unesco’s World Heritage list in December and as a tourism base spatial development initiative, is the first of its kind in the world. [Applause.]
Mnr J W LE ROUX: Mev die Speaker, die ontwikkeling en uitbreiding van ons parke word tot ‘n baie groot mate bevorder deur skenkings, beide plaaslik en internasionaal. Dit sal die Parkeraad dus finansieel help om nie BTW op skenkings te betaal nie en dit sal die skenkers help as skenkings en donasies van belasting afgetrek kan word. Die DA ondersteun graag die wysigingswetsontwerp wat bogenoemde moontlik maak. Natuurbewaring geniet tans wêreldwyd geweldige belangstelling. As Suid-Afrika gesien kan word as die wêreldleier op hierdie gebied, sal dit ons aansien en beeld as ‘n suksesland baie versterk.
Daar is beslis baie meer as net bewaring op die spel. Die uiteindelike sukses vir Suid-Afrika en Suidelike Afrika sal bepaal word deur ons buitelandse beeld. ‘n Gunstige beeld lok belangstelling en toerisme- investering, en ekonomiese voorspoed volg. Suid-Afrika kan trots wees dat die CNN-nuusprogram reeds ‘n uiters gunstige berig oor die vredesparke gebeeldsend het, en dít terwyl die oorlog teen terreur alles oorheers.
Afrikapessimisme is die grootste struikelblok op die pad na voorspoed. Suksesse soos die vredesparkontwikkeling en baie ander natuurbewaringsaksies kan grootliks bydra tot die skep van ‘n gunstige beeld. Leiers van die formaat van dr Anton Rupert en talle ander verdien net die grootste agting vir wat hulle in dié verband verrig het. Feitlik al die grootste en mees respekteerde sakereuse steun reeds die bewaringsaksies in Suid-Afrika. Dit is dus ontstellend dat groot besighede in sekere kringe verdag gemaak word. Minister Moosa en sy amptenare verdien almal se steun. Die insig en toewyding waarmee hulle natuurbewaringsake bestuur en veral die sukses van vredesparke en privatisering is van groot belang vir Suid- Afrika. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr J W LE ROUX: Madam Speaker, the development and expansion of our parks are promoted to a very great extent by donations, both locally and internationally. It would therefore help the Parks Board financially not to have to pay VAT on donations and it would help the donors if donations could be deducted from tax. The DA takes pleasure in supporting the statutory amendment which makes this possible. Nature conservation is a matter of tremendous concern all over the world at the moment. If South Africa could be seen as the world leader in this field, it would greatly enhance our prestige and image as a successful country.
Obviously a lot more than merely conservation is at stake. The ultimate success of South Africa and Southern Africa will be determined by our image abroad. A favourable image attracts interest and investment in tourism, and economic prosperity follows. South Africa can take pride in the fact that the CNN news programme has already televised a very favourable report on the peace parks, and this at a time when everything is dominated by the war against terrorism.
Afro-pessimism is the biggest stumbling block on the road to prosperity. Successes such as the peace park development can contribute a great deal to the creation of a favourable image. Leaders of the calibre of Dr Anton Rupert and many others deserve only the greatest respect for what they have done in this regard. Practically all the largest and most respected business grants are already supporting the conservation actions in South Africa. It is therefore alarming that suspicion is being thrown on large businesses in certain quarters. Minister Moosa and his officials deserve everyone’s support. The insight and dedication with which they manage nature conservation affairs and especially the success of peace parks and privatisation are of great importance to South Africa.]
There are two issues that I would like to mention. The current dominance of the peace parks and success of the national parks must not detract from the importance of the parks in the southern regions of the country. The Eastern Cape especially needs much more attention.
It is important that the Garden Route, Tsitsikamma Storms River, Baviaans Addo Park and Transkei Wild Coast get our Minister’s attention. The upgrading and consolidation of these large and magnificent parks and wilderness areas will give the Eastern Cape a much-needed boost.
Secondly, we must get much more support from the Treasury. We have this unique potential to create enormous parks in wilderness areas second to none in the world. We can create a tourist destination that will capture the imagination of all international travellers. Yet we rely on hand-outs from big business and concerned world nature lovers. We have the infrastructure, the expertise and the will to succeed. All we need is the money. If we can convince Government to cut as little as 5% on the ridiculous arms deal and if we can use these savings to promote nature conservation, we will change the face of South Africa. In this way we can effectively contribute to the African Recovery Plan.
Prof L M MBADI: Madam Speaker, the National Parks Amendment Bill seeks to amend the National Parks Act of 1976, in order to bring SA National Parks within the ambit of the definition of ``association not for gain’’. Section 18 of the National Parks Act of 1976 is amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:
(2A) Upon the winding-up or liquidation of the board it shall donate or
transfer its remaining assets, after the satisfaction of its
liabilities, to some other society, association or organisation with
objects similar to its own.
On 27 July 2001, the Minister of Finance did not include the core activities of SA National Parks, namely conservation, environment and animal welfare, when he listed certain activities needed for the interests and wellbeing of the general public.
The intended amendment, therefore, brings into line the activities of SA National Parks with those listed by the Minister of Finance. Thus, by means of this amendment, the national parks fall into the fold of the definition of associations not for gain and will be exempted from VAT.
The deletion of clause 1.3 of the memorandum on the objects of the Bill is of no consequence to the Bill. The UDM supports the amendment Bill.
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, may we, at the outset, express our sympathies with the families of the 19 SA National Parks employees who lost their lives in the runaway fire at the Kruger National Park last month. We pray that our Lord will comfort them in their loss. And, may we also enquire from the Minister as to when we can expect the results of the Commission of Inquiry into that event.
SA National Parks is a public entity whose mission is to acquire and manage a system of national parks that represents the indigenous wildlife, vegetation, landscapes and significant cultural assets of South Africa for the pride and benefit of the nation.
It manages a system of national parks that is representative of the country’s important ecosystems and unique natural features. As has been pointed out by other speakers, SA National Parks is also a victim of severe financial and budgetary constraints.
In view of the important function it has in protecting and safeguarding our natural heritage, it is crucial that it qualifies de jure and not only de facto for tax exemptions where possible. For this reason the ACDP supports this amendment that seeks to avoid making SA National Parks pay VAT on donations and sponsorships by bringing it within the ambit of the definition of association not for gain in the VAT Act.
During discussions in the portfolio committee, the possibility was also mooted that persons donating funds to SA National Parks should be given a tax deduction for the amounts so donated. We were advised that this was not at present permissible, but we trust that this matter will be further investigated and that the activities of SA National Parks may be brought under the public benefit activities as contemplated in sections 18 and 30 of the Income Tax Act.
In conclusion, we trust that this amendment will contribute to the successful commercialisation programme of the national parks and wish to thank our chairperson, Gwendoline Mahlangu, for her able manner in dealing with this amending Bill. [Applause.]
Dr C P MULDER: Mev die Speaker, die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Nasionale Parke vandag voor ons is ‘n baie kort en eenvoudige wetsontwerp. Die feit van die saak is dat, as mens kyk na die jaarboek, dan word daar in die afdeling wat handel oor toerisme gedeeltes gehanteer rondom die tien top toeristebestemmings in Suid-Afrika. Een van hierdie attraksies is die Krugerpark, wat internasionaal bekend is en dien as die vlagskip van Suid- Afrika se nasionale parke.
Toerisme kan nooit oorbeklemtoon word as een van die belangrikste aspekte in terme van buitelandse valutaverdiening om te kan optree as ‘n instrument om Suid-Afrika te bemark nie. Daar is min mense internasionaal wat nie bekend is met ons nasionale parke nie. Enigiets wat ‘n probleem veroorsaak in terme van ons nasionale parke is vir ons ‘n bekommernis en ons wil die Minister vra om daarna te kyk. Die VF is bekommerd oor die hantering van sekere personeelaangeleenthede by sommige van die nasionale parke.
Die doel van hierdie wetsontwerp word baie duidelik uiteengesit, naamlik om Suid-Afrika se Nasionale Parke binne die trefwydte te bring van die omskrywing van ‘n ``vereniging sonder winsoogmerk’’, soos vervat in die artikel oor belasting op toegevoegde waarde. Die effek is doodeenvoudig dat ons nasionale parke in die toekoms nie langer BTW sal betaal op skenkings en borgskappe nie. Dit is ‘n baie positiewe benadering en behoort gesteun te word. Daardeur sal die geweldige finansiële druk wat op die parke bestaan, verlig word en sal dit moontlik wees om hierdie parke en die hele kommersialiseringsproses verder uit te br+ei, wat ook baie positief is en ons sal dit steun.
Die VF sal baie graag hierdie wetsontwerp steun en ons sal enige maatreël steun wat ons toerismebedryf verder kan uitbou. Hierdie is ‘n positiewe manier om dit te doen en ons steun dit graag. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, the National Parks Amendment Bill before us today is a very concise and elementary Bill. In fact, looking at the yearbook, the part that deals with trade and tourism contains sections on the top ten tourist destinations in South Africa. One of these attractions is the Kruger National Park, which is well known internationally and which serves as the flagship of South Africa’s national parks.
Tourism can never be overestimated as one of the most important aspects in terms of foreign exchange earnings, having the capacity to act as an instrument through which South Africa can be marketed. Internationally, few people are not familiar with our national parks. If anything were to cause a problem in terms of our national parks, we would become concerned about this and would like to ask the Minister to look into it. The FF is concerned about the way in which certain staff matters are being dealt with at some of the national parks.
The aim of this Bill has been set out very clearly, namely to bring South Africa’s National Parks within the scope of the definition of an ``association not for gain’’, as contained in the section about value-added tax. The effect is simply that in future our national parks will no longer be paying VAT on donations and sponsorships. This is a very positive approach which should be supported. In this way the enormous financial pressure upon the parks will be alleviated and it will be possible to extend the parks and the whole process of commercialisation, which is also a very positive aspect that we will support.
The FF would really like to support this Bill, as we will support any measure aimed at further enhancing the tourism industry. This is a positive way of doing so and we gladly support it.]
Mr J D ARENDSE: Madam Speaker, one could easily be fooled into thinking that this Bill is merely about a minor technical amendment. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking that there is not much more to it than meets the eye.
At closer scrutiny, and in the context of the ongoing transformation process in our society, it is revealed that the National Parks Amendment Bill allows our people to participate more freely in the upkeep and conservation of our national parks on a monetary level.
Two weeks ago I walked into a shop where the headlines of the Sunday papers screamed out at the world: ``Miracle In Africa!’’ Being an African, and committed to the resuscitation of the African continent to its former glory, this article naturally interested me. The article, of course, was about the conservation agreement reached between South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. This agreement was probably the most tangible step ever taken by African governments in pursuit of the dream of an African Renaissance, where governments agree, of their own volition, to collapse the physical boundaries that divide them, and to give birth to the world’s largest and most ambitious conservation project.
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the hon Valli Moosa, said it best when he called it ``truly the greatest animal kingdom’’. He said that people would come from all over the continent and world to feel the nurturing touch of mother Africa, for a taste of Eden, for the pristine bush and wide-open spaces to satisfy a primordial longing.
This historic and pioneering initiative is not only a celebration of democracy and regional stability, but also a celebration of the entrenched peace between South Africa and its neighbours. This, in line with the amendment that the Bill before the House proposes, can only serve to strengthen the hand of our Government.
When we pass this Bill today, and we will, it will allow our people to contribute directly to the conservation of wildlife and some of our floral beauty occurring in particular areas. It enables people to make donations or offer sponsorships, without paying more, equivalent to the VAT from which SA National Parks will now be exempted. Certainly, this will assist our national parks in accessing more funds through donations and sponsorships. It will not only attract local sponsors, but also international ones.
So, when we pass this Bill this afternoon, Parliament will assist the people it serves to make more generous contributions to conservation as a whole. All of this is in addition to the contribution that Government is making with its voluntary forfeiture of the VAT on such donations and sponsorships.
We have risen in support of this Bill today not only because of the amendments it proposes to the principal Act, but because of /the bigger picture of transformation, cross-border development and conservation; and because of the commitment of our Government and other African governments to marketing Africa as a top destination in the world tourism market.
We must congratulate the Minister for achieving these noble objectives in what must have been an arduous process. The Minister, in his interaction with his Zimbabwean and Mozambican counterparts, should encourage a similar mechanism for the people of Zimbabwe and Mozambique so that they can also contribute the way we do; but more importantly, so that they can own the initiative in the same way South Africans do.
After the miracle of 1994, we must remind ourselves of the thousands of little miracles that take place in Africa every day. I love Africa, and I love being an African. [Applause.] Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson and colleagues, SA National Parks is registered as an enterprise for value-added tax, and this results in SA National Parks having to pay VAT on any consideration received, in respect of goods or services it provides.
This Bill seeks to turn SA National Parks into an association not for gain, as provided for by the value-added tax Act of 1991. There are Samaritans out there who wish to make donations to the SA National Parks, and this Bill seeks to ensure that each cent so donated should benefit SA National Parks.
The merger will also assist in making National Parks financially sound, because donations and sponsorships so received will be for the sole use of SA National Parks. Revenues for SA National Parks will be independent of the state, to allow the parks to run their own affairs like real businesses, devoid of all bureaucracy that characterises state institutions.
Whilst supporting the Bill, we should caution, however, that all revenues so received should be well accounted for by SA National Parks. Employees of SA National Parks should not be allowed to turn into fat cats on moneys meant to benefit the national parks.
The UCDP supports the Bill.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairman, the PAC supports the National Parks Amendment Bill.
Its purpose is to amend the National Parks Act, 1976. This is to bring SA National Parks within the ambit of the definition ``association not for gain’’, contained in section 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, 1991.
Section 18 of the National Parks Act, 1976, is amended by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following subsection:
2(A) Upon the winding-up or liquidation of the board it shall donate or transfer its remaining assets, after the satisfaction of its liabilities, to some other society, association or organisation with objects similar to its own.
The Bill seems to be the type which must be dealt with in accordance with the procedure established in section 75 of the Constitution. It is important for me, on behalf of the PAC of Azania, to mention that national parks are an important heritage. They are places where our wild animals are kept as well as where our natural vegetation is preserved.
Natural parks are the source of our wealth. They must be well looked after. They must be places that are for enjoyment by the poor and by the rich. Access to them must be affordable. This was not the case in the past, and there is no sign that there is a change to this now.
The other point which is of concern to the PAC, is love for animals more than love for people. We all must love animals, but we must love people more than animals. It is not right to give more land for animal use when people have no homes and live in places unsuitable for human habitation, and their life expectancy on this planet is shortened as a result of the unhealthy conditions in which they live.
The PAC trusts that the land distribution will benefit our national parks, but equally enable our people to live dignified lives, in dignified homes, with more land and more means to acquire education and technical skills. [Time expired.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, national parks throughout South Africa have been deemed not only a major tourist magnet and a home to many of our flora and fauna, but have been complimented significantly on their beauty and content as well. Even the Government itself has recognised this in labelling one of our many national parks as a gift that not only deserves our care and preservation, but attention and protection even more.
In order to maintain these parks, not only are state funds depended upon, but donations are also a major source of income, which greatly assist in preserving our parks and their affluent content.
The party recognises that the taxing of these donations does not only lessen income, but also diminishes the degree of preservation and maintenance that should be in place. We should not be allowed to take away from what we should be giving. It is therefore felt that the accommodation made in the amending Bill, to exempt SA National Parks from paying VAT on donations and sponsorships, is in place and correct. Further, it is felt that the proposed accommodation to be made by Sars to donors and sponsors is well deserved. This would represent a token of our appreciation.
The MF commends the department for the amendment made, which certainly will serve to boost the funds available to the parks. That certainly is for a good cause. Our aim is not to make hay of a benefit due to a subject in need, but, indeed, rather to make hay of the proper preservation and maintenance of the subject at hand.
The MF supports the National Parks Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Voorsitter, die AEB plaas ‘n groot premie op die bewaring van ons natuurlike erfenis en hierin speel ons Nasionale Parkeraad ‘n baie belangrike rol. Ons nasionale parke is ‘n nasionale bate en hierdie bate moet beskerm word.
Die Parkeraad is veel meer as ‘n toerisme-organisasie. Navorsing- en bewaringsprojekte bring groot uitgawes mee en op ‘n besigheidsgrondslag kan hierdie diens nie volgehou word nie. Daarom is hierdie wetsontwerp noodsaaklik sodat die Nasionale Parkeraad binne die trefwydte gebring kan word van die woordomskrywing van ``verenigings sonder winsoogmerk’’, aangesien dit is wat die Nasionale Parkeraad inderdaad is. Dit is onlogies dat ‘n organisasie wat hierdie diens lewer BTW op skenkings moet betaal. Donasies vir ons parke is bedoel vir Valli Moosa en nie vir Trevor Manuel nie. Daarom steun ons hierdie wetsontwerp.
Ons vertrou dat dit ‘n stimulus sal wees vir die broodnodige invloei van skenkings vir ons nasionale parke, en saam met die ACDP, vra ons dat daar ook gekyk moet word na die moontlikheid van die aftrekbaarheid van hierdie donasies vir inkomstebelastingdoeleindes. Ons vertrou dat hierdie wetsontwerp ook daartoe sal bydra dat ons land se grootste natuurlike bate, die Krugerwildtuin, nie ‘n eksklusiewe bestemming word vir die dollars van buitelanders en die ryk elite van Suid-Afrika nie, maar dat dit weer die kuierplek sal word van die gewone man op straat, binne die bereik van gewone mense soos parlementariërs. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.) [Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, the AEB places a huge premium on the conservation of our natural heritage and our National Parks Board is playing a very important role in this. Our national parks are a national asset and this asset must be protected. The Parks Board is much more than a tourism organisation. Research and conservation projects bring about huge expenses and this service cannot be maintained along business lines. That is why this Bill is imperative so that the National Parks Board can be brought within the scope of the definition of an ``association not for gain’’, because that is precisely what the National Parks Board is. It is not logical that an organisation that renders this service must pay VAT on donations. Donations for our parks are meant for Valli Moosa and not Trevor Manuel. That is why we support this Bill.
We trust that this will be a stimulus for the essential influx of donations for our national parks and with the ACDP we ask that the possibility of the deductibility of these donations for income tax purposes should also be looked into. We trust that this Bill will also lead to our country’s largest natural asset, the Kruger Park, not becoming an exclusive destination for the dollars of foreigners and the rich elite of South Africa, but that it will again become the visiting place of the ordinary man in the street, within reach of normal people like parliamentarians.]
The MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM: Mr Chairperson, may I join Mr Moorcroft in congratulating the chairperson of the portfolio committee, the hon Gwen Mahlangu, on the manner in which she conducted the discussion in the portfolio committee on this matter, and also to thank all of the members of the portfolio committee and all the speakers today.
May I just say that the hon Pheko made what I think is quite an important point. He said that we love animals, but we love human beings more. I think that is an important point to make. I would like, within the context of that remark, which I agree with, to point out that in the pre-1994 situation, we had the subsidy to SA National Parks increasing every year. In the post-1994 situation, the subsidy to SA National Parks has decreased every year.
At the same time, we have increased the extent of the protection of the environment in this country. This has been a very delicate balance to work out. We are a developing country and we have to ask ourselves a question: can we possibly prioritise spending on the protection of the environment over and above spending on the education of children, on the healthcare of pregnant mothers and on all of the basic needs that the poor people have in this country? Obviously, we cannot prioritise the protection of the environment over and above the protection of human beings, children, women, the aged, etc.
This is what brings us to developing a particular model which we think will act as a model for the rest of the African continent, where it is possible for us to protect the environment, to expand our parks and at the same time reduce the burden on the taxpayer, and not create a burden on the poor. That is the model we have worked out.
Let me just give hon members an example of some of the figures. In 1994 the Government subsidy to SA National Parks was 29% of its total income. At that time the income of SA National Parks was R173 million. In 2001 the total subsidy as a percentage of its income has dropped from 29% to 15%. The income of SA National Parks at the moment is R327 million. So, it has gone up from R173 million in 1994 to R327 million in 2001. The subsidy has remained around R50 million a year - more or less static - which means it has been dropping sharply over the years.
What has happened? Exactly in the period 1994 to 2001 SA National Parks have expanded more and faster than in any other comparable period in its entire history. That is because it is possible for us to work out a model which will ensure that conservation can, to a large extent, pay for itself. And we think it can. The Kruger National Park is one of the best tourism destinations in the world, and there is no reason why poor taxpayers should be subsidising the holiday-makers who go there. I think we have already established that.
Hon Mr Moorcroft and others have pointed out that SA National Parks is in financial difficulties. That is true. I would like to assure them that those financial difficulties do not however constitute a crisis. Government is attending to the matter. The Minister of Finance and I are looking into this matter very closely. These are the jewels of our country and we cannot allow them to go under. So, hon members can rest assured as far as that is concerned. As far as the concessioning of some of the tourism operations in the parks is concerned, here again hon members can be quite assured that both that and, more particularly, the donations and sponsorships that a park receives generally go into capital expenditure, land acquisition and infrastructure work, and not into recurrent expenditure as such. This is the way in which we were able to expand our parks.
The hon Mr Swart asked a question: When will the results of the inquiry into the deaths caused by veld fire in the Kruger National Park last month be released? I must say that I am not certain about that, but I do get his point that it is something that should be speeded up. I will try to get that information and furnish him with it.
Let me finally make the point that already the model which we have is beginning to make sense in other countries. For example, Mozambique is one of the least developed nations in the world, and one of the poorest countries in the world that we have today. Yet Mozambique is in the process of declaring Coutada 16, which is part of the Gaza province adjoining the Kruger National Park, as a national park in terms of Mozambican law, which will give it the highest level of conservation protection. This was not the case in the past - it was a sort of hunting area. They are doing that because of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park which is about to be established.
The hon Pheko should note that what has been realised is that by creating these parks we are creating economic opportunities for the poor. The best example of that has been the Makuleke community, which has been given a portion of the Kruger National Park because they claimed it during the land claim process. The Makuleke community was forcibly removed from the northernmost part of the Kruger National Park in the 1960s. After democratisation they said that was their land. Government looked at the matter - I think hon Hanekom was the Minister at the time - and they got their land back. What did the Makuleke community decide to do? They said they were not going to remove that land from the Kruger National Park. They would leave it as part of the Kruger National Park and were not going to reoccupy it. They would use it rather as an ecotourism destination and derive the ecotourism benefits, and leave it under the conservation of the Kruger National Park.
So, I think for the first time what we have is the rich and the poor living side by side, and participating in what is a very ambitious programme of creating a model which will ensure that our parks, regardless of whatever may happen to our economy in the future, do not go down the path of what has happened to parks in some other developing countries. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
MERCHANDISE MARKS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairperson, this amending Bill is
in essence a housekeeping Bill and I will not dwell on it at length. What
we are doing is to rationalise and clean up the definitions within this
Bill to clearly distinguish between the terms device'', mark’’,
``name’’ and the trade mark concept itself.
In addition to that we are dealing with certain other matters such as well- known trademarks. This is aligned with the amendment we made to the Counterfeit Goods Bill recently. We are dealing with the questions of heraldic images, flags, etc, which we need to deal with.
There has been an interesting discussion in the committee on the growing complexity of the link between rules of origin and the emerging Merchandise Marks Act. This is something that we will have to address at a future stage. But currently the position, I think, is relatively clear. With the proliferation of free trade agreements that are emerging in the world today, we may well have to address this matter of harmonising the concept of rules of origin marks and labelling in general with the international trade system.
However, I believe this is a housekeeping Bill and we urge the House to support it. [Applause.]
Mrs B N SONO: Mr Chairperson, hon members, the Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Merchandise Marks Act of 1941 so as to define an expression and to amend certain definitions, to make provision regarding the application of trade descriptions to goods and the alteration of trademarks.
The DP accepts the fact that the adjustment effected by this Bill is necessary for the economy to be competitive and to benefit from global trade. The DP also recognises South Africa’s obligations in terms of Article VI of the Paris Convention. The DP however wishes to voice its concern that as this Parliament steams ahead with legislation and amending Bills, the irony is that a lot of bureaucracies are created to deal with provisions of legislation, but the economy is not growing. Through legislation only bureaucrats are being enriched. Whilst we legislate, legislation has no Marshall Plan to talk to, no Marshall Plan to unleash and harness the huge, diverse entrepreneurial culture so abundant in this country. The Government’s role should be to create a regulatory environment in which business can operate and prosper, and to develop a Marshall Plan to give economic direction and facilitate development.
For many years, products with brand names and flags from overseas countries have been freely traded in in South Africa by our up-and-coming entrepreneurs, alias hawkers, in the informal sector. Recent legislation regulating and controlling the sale of these illegally imported goods have resulted in the forfeiture and confiscation of these goods, much to the suffering and concern of the hawker who innocently bought these products from unscrupulous importers. This Bill with its good intentions, despite controlling the various applications of trade descriptions to goods, will at the same time take away an opportunity for the informal sector to earn a living.
Following this legislation, the DP believes that the Department of Trade and Industry must seriously look at ways and means of supplementing the void created regarding illegal goods brought about by this piece of legislation. Here the DP would encourage the replacement of illegal goods with equal-quality goods of South African origin in the South Africa market as an incentive to increase the number of hawkers on the one hand, and the promotion of South Africa’s manufactured goods on the other. Institutions that Government sets up use the same rules that were applied by institutions that traditionally disempowered people.
About a month ago this Parliament passed the IDC Amendment Bill, enlarging the IDC’s scope of activity into the SMME arena. But, there is no plan to begin to address the huge problem of a fragmented SMME sector, to help sustain the programme of action that the IDC is to embark on. Let us take the Cape Venture Capital Fund as an example. Whilst there is access by entrepreneurs to these funds, there should be a shift away from the way the funds are being accessed. But because of a fragmented sector and the fact that the huge informal SMME sector still has to be exposed to sophisticated financial instruments, there is no plan even to develop the financial services market to help it to operate at an optimal level.
The DP supports this Bill with the hope that at some stage a Marshall Plan will emerge for purposes of convergence of legislation.
Dr R H DAVIES: Chairperson, as has already been indicated, this is largely
a technical Bill which was in fact passed unanimously by the portfolio
committee. The main thing it does, as the Minister indicated, is to
introduce in the definitions a distinction between the terms mark'' and
registered trademark’’, and to extend protection to well-known
international marks from countries that are members of the Paris Convention
that may not be registered in South Africa, provided that they follow the
procedures that are laid out in section 35 of the Trademarks Act. Most of
the amendments in the Bill are consequential upon this.
As was referred to by the Minister and by Mrs Sono just now, perhaps the main new provision that the Bill introduces is to extend to Paris Convention member countries provisions that have been entrenched in our own laws since 1997, prohibiting the use of national flags, coats of arms and other state emblems in products that are registered as trademarks, unless permission is sought. What this means is that if one wants to use a state emblem of a Paris Convention country, one has to get permission from that jurisdiction or minister.
The hon Sono made a big song and dance about the fact that there are people who apparently have been trading in these products on a large scale. I do not know where they are. I do not see too many emblems from other countries. But what she does not seem to realise is that, as a member of the Paris Convention, there is a reciprocal obligation on all other members countries of the Paris Convention to do the same. In fact, the abuse of state emblems is largely something which is affecting us negatively with regard to, for example, reproductions of images of our former President, flags and other items. I think we probably have more to gain from the passage of this piece of legislation in terms of getting enforcement in other jurisdictions of our own rights to our own national emblems than we have to lose in terms of the one or two traders who might be using flags and images of foreign presidents in our country.
As the Minister indicated, there was one clause that led us to raise a few questions in the committee. This was clause 6 of the amending Bill, which amends section 9 of the principal Act. Section 9 requires that any goods which are not made or produced in South Africa and which bear a mark in an official South African language should include a conspicuous indication of the name of the country where this product was manufactured. Such a provision is important for a number of reasons. It could, for example, be important in the light of the ``Proudly South African’’ campaign which was launched last week. Perhaps it could also be important in the spirit of promoting regional integration to develop a positive attitude towards products which originate in our neighbouring countries, that is, in the SADC region.
From the questions which we asked it was not clear to us that section 9, as it is currently formulated, sufficiently takes into account the reality of goods that are produced and marketed, and this includes inputs from more than one country. In fact, the provisions in section 9 offer no real guidance on how the country of origin of goods which have inputs from several countries should be described in terms of this legislation. As the Minister indicated, there is no necessary conformity between the requirements in this legislation and the rules of origin in trade agreements. This means that consumers cannot necessarily be confident that goods which bear a signal indicating that they were made in a neighbouring country conform with the local content requirements of the SADC trade protocol, although if the goods entered the country legally and benefited from the duty-free or tariff reduction provisions of the trade protocol, they would have to do so.
As the amendment to section 9 in this Bill was purely consequential to the introduction of the new definitions, and as nobody had any objection to it, we accepted it at that stage. However, I was pleased to hear the Minister saying it was something that needed looking at in future. With these few words, we are happy to support the Bill.
Mr H J BEKKER: Chairperson, the most important objective of this Bill is to amend the principal Act of 1941 and bring it into line with the Paris Convention to which South Africa is a signatory. The applicable amendment in this case is to prohibit the unauthorised use of state emblems of those state members which are signatories to the Paris Convention.
In terms of this convention, member states are encouraged to prohibit the use of these emblems without proper authorisation. Due to the fact that the Paris Convention is part of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, better known as Trips, South Africa is obliged to include the provisions of article 6 of the convention in our legislation.
The above amendment is important, as it recognises state emblems as a form of intellectual property similar to trademarks and patent rights. Member states of the Paris Convention can therefore rightfully claim that their state emblems are their intellectual property. As is the case in respect of all other forms of such rights, proper authorisation must be obtained before the emblems may be used, for instance, in advertising, marketing, manufacturing and promotional activities.
Furthermore, the Bill also outlaws false trade descriptions being used and makes their use an offence. For instance, false labelling of a product as a product of South Africa when it was in fact manufactured in another country and then imported, would be an offence under the amended Act. This is an important amendment, as it extends protection to legitimate manufacturers, producers and traders of products for the export market and ensures that only legitimate South African products may be marketed as such.
Since we are about to embark on the ``Proudly South African’’ campaign, this legislation is timeous. With this legislation in place, action can be taken against businesses abusing the emblems of our country. The amendment is logical and therefore the IFP will support this Bill.
Dr R T RHODA: Chairperson, at present a measure of overlap exists between the provisions of the Counterfeit Goods Act, Act 37 of 1997 and the Merchandise Marks Act, Act 17 of 1941 in so far as they relate to trademark rights. The Counterfeit Goods Act was promulgated with the specific view of ensuring appropriate protection against counterfeiting in relation to trademark rights recognised by statutes, in particular in terms of the Trademarks Act, Act 194 of 1993.
The present definition of ``trade description’’ in the Merchandise Marks Act can be interpreted to include trademark rights. This has led to the practical problem that in some instances the South African Police Service refuses to act in terms of the Counterfeit Goods Act and prefers to continue to act in terms of the Merchandise Marks Act. Amendments to the Merchandise Marks Act are therefore necessary to clarify that this Act does not relate to all trademarks conferred by the Trademarks Act of 1993. This entails several consequential amendments being made to the various sections of the Act to achieve the desired objective. The substances of these sections remain unaltered, however.
In regard to clause 2 of the Bill, which amends section 2 of the principal Act, the changes and definitions of the Act, as amended, have made it necessary, from a tactical drafting point of view, to insert the word ``false’’ in specified places. But again, these tactical changes leave the substance of section 2 unaltered.
The proposed amendment to the definition of trademark'' now includes a
reference toa well-known trademark contemplated in section 35 of the
Trade Marks Act of 1993’’. The new definition for mark'' is in line with
the definition formark’’ that is currently in the Trade Marks Act, Act
194 of 1994, but for the fact that it excludes a trademark.
The proposed amendments of sections 2, 6 and 8 of the Merchandise Marks Act deal with acts which amount to false trade descriptions and seek to make such activities unlawful. The intention has, however, always been that the Merchandise Marks Act should continue to regulate the position with regard to the alteration of any trademark, whether by addition or effacement or in any other manner. Certain minor clarifying amendments in that regard were also required and have been incorporated. Lastly, in terms of article 6 of the Paris Convention South Africa is obliged to prohibit the unauthorised use of national flags, memorials bearing official signs, hallmarks and the like of convention countries, including the Republic of South Africa. The Merchandise Marks Act was regarded as inadequate and the proposed amendments will bring it into line with the provisions of the Paris Convention.
The New NP supports this Bill.
Mr C T FROLICK: Mr Chairperson and hon members, the amending Bill before us seeks to further entrench the protection of intellectual property rights regarding trademarks.
In an increasingly globalised marketplace it is of special importance that trademarks and intellectual property are sufficiently protected. The Paris Convention plays a central role in this regard. It is, therefore, of utmost importance for South Africa, as a signatory of that convention, to comply with its provisions, as this Bill sets out to do.
It will be interesting, though, to know from the hon the Minister whether large trading countries such as China and other countries are signatories to the convention and the impact it will have on us, what the cost of compliance with the convention is and which monitoring mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that other signatories comply with it. Similarly, we must ensure that other countries are held responsible for their agreements.
The protection of intellectual property rights is dependent upon mutual commitment and co-operation. It is imperative that Government take transgressions of this nature to the proper forum such as the World Trade Organisation, the WTO, and the Workshop In Business Opportunities, or WIBO.
Since the amendments are usually of a technical nature the UDM supports these amendments.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Mr Chairperson and hon members, the regular overhaul of legislation is most welcome in order to keep the laws of the country dynamic.
This piece of legislation is long overdue. However, it is just what the doctor ordered, particularly in respect of national symbols, since almost everybody can just display anything as if it were a national symbol.
It is so embarrassing when one sees a huge truck wearing the colours of the national flag as if that truck belongs to the state. Some security companies go to the extent of using the national flag as their logo on their uniforms, giving a very misleading impression that they are national institutions.
The passing of this Bill will ensure that individuals, private companies and institutions do not enhance their images and portray themselves as part of the national body. On these grounds the UCDP supports this Bill.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairperson, the Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill amends a very old law, ie the Merchandise Marks Act of 1941. It is obvious that this Act cannot remain the same after 60 years.
The purpose of this Bill is to amend certain definitions to make further provision regarding the application of trade descriptions to goods and the alteration of trademarks to clarify the scope of the Act in its implication to trademarks. The amendment prohibits the unauthorised use of national flags.
The PAC’s comment on the use of the national flag in this country is that it is often used for private interests to a point where it loses its national symbolism. To many it is just a piece of cloth without any patriotic attachment to it.
Section’s 2, 3, 4 and 6, respectively, provide important headings which I am not going to mention because my time is very limited.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson, the MF respects the need for the Republic to comply with the Paris Convention that stipulates that the unauthorised use of a nation’s flags and state emblems is prohibited, and thus commends the department for making provision for this.
A nation’s flag and state emblem tell a story of its people, heritage and content that, without question, deserves respect. The party agrees that the use of these should be governed by a mechanism that ensures against its abuse. It is further recognised that we need to fill the loopholes in the Trade Mark Act as well as the Counterfeit Goods Act and the Act acknowledges that the amending Bill accommodates this.
The MF also appreciates the clarification the Bill provides by
distinguishing between mark'', name’’, devise'', trade
description’’ and ``trademark’’. This will allow for better understanding
and categorisation. The MF supports the Mechandise Marks Amendment Bill.
[Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairperson, it is encouraging that South Africa adheres to international conventions such as the Paris Convention. South Africa is a country amongst the important ones in the international gallery of states. Adherence to these conventions proves that we are not a banana republic. Therefore the AEB supports this Bill.
False labelling, fakes and the misuse of national symbols, including that of the springbok, must be outruled.
Ons stem dat ons nasionale simbole nie misbruik word vir goedkoop kommersiële gewin nie. [We vote that our national symbols are not misuse for cheap commercial gain.]
This case is a little warning. Today one can find antique pieces from the old government, the coat of arms and the protea at auctions selling silverware, furniture and so on. I ask the hon the Minister to see to it that our history is not auctioned away. This morning in the Rules Committee Parliament decided that the curator must look at that. Is it not possible for all other state departments to be alerted so that they do not let these things be lost at random?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr Chairperson, may I begin by thanking the members of the committee for the work they did with regard to these technical amendments. I believe that it is important that people look at these and study them, and I must say that I have always been impressed by the members’ knowledge of the technicalities of these Bills. They are very important and I think that the more informed our committees are, the better the quality of our legislation. So I would sincerely like to thank the committee members for taking these matters seriously.
I want to deal with one or two matters that were raised. Firstly, I do find it somewhat disappointing that the spokespersons of the DA or the DP continually focus on the negative. They talk about the South African economy’s problems, but if one were to look at the South African economy’s growth rate at present, we are one of the few economies in the world, certainly the emerging world, that has a positive growth rate. Why do we not talk about this? We are always talking about the negative.
Let me also say quite categorically that matters such as trademarks and other things are related to international conventions. They have nothing to do with old apartheid regimes or anything like that.
Let us therefore not create any false expectations that anybody, a hawker, a businessperson, no matter who they are, can violate these laws. We will not tolerate anybody, no matter who they are, breaking the law, and we should not give cause for people to have an expectation that somehow we condone their actions of breaking the law. I find it most unacceptable for a party in this Parliament to talk in that manner.
Regarding China and other countries, I want to say briefly that one of the reasons South Africa so strongly supports China’s accession to the WTO, is that one cannot have one of the world’s largest economies outside the world trading system. I think it is very important that they come in so that we can deal with this matter systematically with all countries.
I want to urge MPs, who are now experts on these matters, that when they travel abroad they should please help us monitor these laws and report to us any transgression they see.
I think we should be concerned about our heritage, but there is nothing I can do to stop the auctioning of a coat of arms that is no longer the national coat of arms. From a historical point of view, we should not take heirlooms, antiques and other matters and treat them lightly. These will be valuable property one day. If there is some way the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology can deal with this, it may be useful.
I want to thank members for their support of this Bill. It is important that South Africa keeps pace with the changing developments in the world trade system. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
The House adjourned at 16:41. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Minister of Trade and Industry submitted the
Wysigingswetsontwerp op Handelswaremerke [W 33 - 2001] (Nasionale
Vergadering - art 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 4
October 2001. This is the official translation of the Merchandise
Marks Amendment Bill [B 33 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75),
which was introduced in the National Assembly by the Minister on
14 June 2001.
(2) The Minister of Communications submitted the
Wysigingswetsontwerp op Posdienste [W 63 - 2001] (Nasionale
Vergadering - art 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 4
October 2001. This is the official translation of the Postal
Services Amendment Bill [B 63 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec
75), which was introduced in the National Assembly by the Minister
on 4 September 2001.
National Assembly:
- The Speaker:
The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
relevant committees as mentioned below:
(1) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Safety and Security. The Report of the Auditor-General contained
in the following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report:
Report and Financial Statements of the Independent Complaints
Directorate for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 149-2001].
(2) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Safety and Security:
Government Notice No 764 published in Government Gazette No 22583
dated 24 August 2001, Amendment of the South African Police
Service Employment Regulations, 1999, made in terms of section
24(1) of the South African Police Service Act, 1995 (Act No 68 of
1995).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Home Affairs:
Report and Financial Statements of the Film and Publication Board for
2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements of 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Foreign Affairs:
(1) Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African,
Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the
European Community and its Members States, of the other part,
signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, tabled in terms of section
231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.
(2) Explanatory Memorandum on the Partnership Agreement.
(3) Government Notice No R.851 published in Government Gazette No
22653 dated 6 September 2001, Draft Regulations published for
public comment as required by section 91(4) of the Public Finance
Management Act, 1999, made in terms of section 91(1)(b) of the
Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of 1999).
FRIDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Assent by the Acting President of the Republic in respect of the
following Bill:
(i) Close Corporations Amendment Bill [B 31B - 2001] - Act No
22 of 2001 (assented to and signed by Acting President on
3 October 2001).
(2) The Minister of Finance submitted the Wetsontwerp op die
Regulering van Provinsiale Belasting [W 51 - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 76) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 5 October
2001. This is the official translation of the Provincial Tax
Regulation Bill [B 51 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 76), which
was introduced in the National Assembly by the Minister on 28
August 2001.
(3) The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs submitted the
Wetsontwerp op Bestuur van Landbouskuld [W 54 - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 5 October
2001. This is the official translation of the Agricultural Debt
Management Bill [B 54 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), which
was introduced in the National Assembly by the Minister on 29
August 2001.
MONDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2001
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(a) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
South African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority for 1 April
2000 to 30 June 2000 [RP 109-2001].
(b) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Foundation for Education, Science and Technology for the year
ended 31 March 2000 [RP 116-2001].
(c) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
National Supplies Procurement Fund for the year ended 31 March
2000 [RP 114-2001].
(d) Report of the Auditor-General on the Special Review of the
Deposit Account Administrated by the Department of Justice and
Constitutional Development and Related Matters [RP 100-2001].
(e) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of
President's Fund for the year ended 31 March 2001 [RP 99-2001].
(f) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
State President Fund for the financial year ending 31 March 2001
[RP 97-2001].
(g) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Health Donations Fund for the year ended 31 March 2001 [RP 96-
2001].
(h) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Social Relief Fund for the year ending 31 March 2000 [RP 95-2001].
(i) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Refugee Relief Fund for the year ended 31 March 2001 [RP 94-2001].
(j) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of
Urban Transport Fund for the year ended 31 March 2000 [RP 90-
2001].
(k) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
High School Vorentoe Disaster Fund for the year ended 31 March
2001 [RP 87-2001].
(l) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Independent Development Trust (Main Fund) for the year ended 31
March 2000 [RP 76-2001]. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Employment Benefits of TRC staff, dated 19 September 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered documents regarding the remuneration, allowances and other employment benefits of the staff of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, tabled on 21 May 2001 in terms of section 9(2)(a) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation, 1995 (Act No. 34 of 1995), referred to the Committee, recommends, pursuant to section 9(2)(b) of the Act, that the determination is in order and that the House take no further action.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Employment Conditions of Public Protector staff, dated 19 September 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered a document dated 3 July 2001, in terms of section 3(11)(a) of the Public Protector Act, 1994 (Act No. 23 of 1994), setting out the remuneration, allowances and other conditions of employment determined by the Public Protector for staff in his office, referred to the Committee, recommends, pursuant to section 3(11)(b) of the said Act, that the determination by the Public Protector as set out in the said document is in order and that the House take no further action.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Directives in terms of section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1997, dated 19 September 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered Directives in terms of section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1997 (Act No. 76 of 1997), in terms of which legal aid or legal representation is rendered or made available for purposes of section 3 of the Act, tabled on 16 February 2001 in terms of section 4(2)(b) of the Act, referred to the Committee, reports that it cannot support the said Directives in view thereof that the Constitutional Court in S v Steyn 2001(1) BCLR 52 (CC) held that the provisions of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), are unconstitutional.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Directives in terms of section 7 of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act, 1998, dated 19 September 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered Directives in terms of section 7 of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act, 1998 (Act No. 68 of 1998), in terms of which legal aid or legal representation is rendered or made available for purposes of section 3(a) of the Act, tabled on 16 February 2001 in terms of section 7(2)(b) of the Act, referred to the Committee, reports that it does not have any objection to the said Directives.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on Study Visit to World Trade Organisation, Geneva, dated 19 September 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, having undertaken a
study visit to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva from 23 to 26
July 2001, reports as follows:
A. Introduction
Between 23 and 26 July 2001, a delegation made up of members of
the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry and the Select
Committee on Economic Affairs travelled to Geneva to meet with
officials of and delegations to the World Trade Organisation
(WTO). The delegation comprised the following members and staff:
Dr R H Davies (Chairperson), Mr S M Rasmeni, Ms C C September, Mrs
B M Ntuli, Ms R N Shope, Mr Z Kotwal, Ms E Thabethe (ANC); Mr N S
Bruce, Ms N B Sono (DP); Mr H J Bekker (IFP);
Mr F Beukman (New NP); Mr C T Frolic (UDM); Mr M V Moosa (SC
Chairperson), Mr S L E Fenyane (ANC); Dr E A Conroy (New NP); Mrs
L S Matshikiza (Committee Secretary) and Ms S Naidoo (Departmental
Liaison Officer).
The aim of the visit was to acquaint ourselves with some of the
issues and perspectives ahead of the WTO Ministerial Meeting
scheduled to take place in Doha in November this year. Our visit
took place at a propitious time. During our stay in Geneva, the
Chairperson of the General Council and the Director-General issued
a report on The Current State of Preparatory Work, and many of our
informants reflected on themes in that report.
We had an opportunity to engage with a number of key officials,
including the Director-General, Mr Mike Moore, as well as with
representatives of several key delegations. We are grateful to the
South African Mission to the United Nations in Geneva and
especially to the Representative to the WTO, Mr Xavier Carrim, for
arranging an excellent programme.
The report on The Current State of Preparatory Work notes that
while the launch of a new multi-sectoral Round of negotiations at
Doha "is effectively the working hypothesis" of many delegations,
others remain unconvinced. It acknowledges that "more needs to be
done to meet the concerns of some WTO members, particularly some
developing and least-developed countries, about the prospects of
taking on new negotiations when they face problems with existing
commitments", and indicates that there are still substantial gaps
in the positions of delegations on important questions. The report
says that the bridging of these gaps in the short time available
will be "difficult and complex" and says that a failure to arrive
at a consensus for the agenda for Doha in the next few weeks
"could call into question both our approach to decision-making and
the value of the WTO as a forum for negotiations". Some of our
informants told us that unless these gaps were narrowed the WTO
risked becoming merely another Geneva-based talkshop, and appeals
have been publicly made to delegations to return from the northern
hemisphere summer recess with a greater willingness to modify
positions.
B. Background
The immediate background to the present processes is the failed
third WTO Ministerial Meeting held in Seattle in December 1999.
While much media attention focused on the anti-globalisation
protests outside the Seattle meeting, its failure was as much due
to the lack of agreement among delegations participating in the
proceedings. The 1987-1993 Uruguay Round of multi-lateral
negotiations, which resulted in the establishment of the WTO, had
created what is increasingly acknowledged as an unequal and uneven
rules-based global trading system. The Uruguay Round had been
dominated by demands of advanced industrialised countries and
powerful transnational corporations. In adopting the Marrakech
Agreement arising from that Round, it was acknowledged that
developmental issues had not received adequate attention and that
various steps to address what are now known as "implementation
issues" needed to be taken. Some 92 "implementation issues" have
been identified, some requiring textual changes to the Agreement.
The Marrakech Agreement also provided for reviews of the Trade-
related Intellectual Property measures (TRIPS) and the Trade-
related Investment Measures (TRIMS), as well as further
negotiations on agricultural trade and trade in services. These
negotiations (known as the "mandated negotiations") duly began on
schedule at the beginning of 2000, but it is generally
acknowledged that many developed country delegations are holding
back their final offers on subsidies and market access pending
greater clarity on a possible new Round. Meanwhile, at the second
WTO Ministerial Meeting held in Singapore in 1995, several OECD
countries indicated their ambition for the WTO to negotiate
agreements on a range of "new issues", including investment
policy, competition policy, e-commerce and government procurement,
as well as labour and environmental standards. Other delegations
have also raised subjects like debt and trade. The Seattle meeting
convened with many of these issues unresolved in the vain hope
that the gaps between delegations would be bridged in a few days.
For developing countries, the fundamental issue at stake is
restructuring the global economy and global trading system in a
more equitable manner. The Marrakech Agreement required a
significant percentage lowering of average tariff levels as well
as compliance with a range of "trade-related" obligations (TRIPS,
TRIMS), but also allowed developed countries to maintain in place
a range of protectionist barriers against products where
developing countries had a competitive advantage or could acquire
one. Officials told us that OECD subsidies on agricultural
products were now costing the equivalent of two thirds of the GNP
of Africa and that their removal could return to Africa an amount
of more than three times all Official Development Aid. In its 1999
Trade and Development Report, UNCTAD, which we also visited while
in Geneva, estimated that the removal of tariff peaks, escalations
and non-tariff barriers on non-agricultural products where
developing countries had or could acquire a competitive advantage,
could add $700 billion to export earnings. Addressing issues of
capacity in developing countries and providing for more effective
Special and Differential Treatment for poorer countries are also
seen as key challenges. All in all, as a number of developing
countries are arguing, producing a more equitable trading system
in which developing countries benefit more fully from
globalisation requires major structural change in the world
economy, with developed economies in particular being willing to
undergo significant structural adjustment to provide greater
access to developing economies in areas where the latter have an
actual or potential competitive advantage.
C. Main Groupings and Current Positions
The main groupings and positions being adopted at the time of our
visit were:
At the one end of the spectrum are the European Union (EU), Japan
and some other OECD countries which are calling for a new "broad-
based" Round, focusing on a number of the "new issues" -
competition policy, investment, e-commerce, etc. In the case of
the EU, this is being argued, in part at least, as providing the
best possibility of a more significant trade-off on issues of
concern to developing countries, particularly on agricultural
trade. Significantly, no delegation is now demanding that labour
standards as an actionable issue in terms of the WTO disputes
mechanism be put on the agenda. As far as investment is concerned,
among proponents of an early investment agreement the consensus
appears to be moving towards a "bottom up/closed list" approach in
which all sectors would be closed except those identified by
countries for liberalisation. Liberalisation would require
providing access for foreign investors and according them
"national treatment". Our informants insisted that that meant
treatment that was equivalent to the best provided to nationals
(in Malaysia's case, equivalent to that provided to bumuputra
companies). However, debate is continuing on obligations that
could be imposed on investors in terms of training, etc, as well
as on the use of investment incentives.
At the other end of the spectrum lie India, Pakistan and several
other developing countries (including some SADC members) known as
the "like-minded group". They oppose the launching of a "broad-
based" Round, arguing that the WTO should focus on "re-balancing"
the existing Agreement and that its work agenda should be confined
to "implementation issues" and the "mandated negotiations". They
argue that the WTO and developing countries in particular lack the
capacity to effectively address "re-balancing" and "new issues"
simultaneously, and fear that as in the Uruguay Round
developmental concerns could simply be swamped by complex "new
issue" negotiations.
Between these lie the majority of WTO members. The United States,
after some hesitation, has now also come out in favour of a "broad-
based" Round. The US is, however, not a demandeur on such issues
as competition policy and investment, but has indicated that it
will not block a consensus, should one arise. The US's stated
preference is for a new Round that enlarges market access across
the globe.
The Cairns Group (of which South Africa is part) appears to be
willing to contemplate a "broad-based" new Round provided that it
is tied to specific commitments in the Doha declaration on
agricultural trade. The mandated negotiations already underway
have adopted negotiating guidelines which have identified the
scope and modality of negotiations, but specific offers and
requests have not yet been tabled. The Cairns Group is anxious to
see specific commitments made at Doha on the "progressive
elimination" of trade distorting subsidies, while the EU,
Switzerland and others want much vaguer language in Doha.
Several other developing countries, including several from Latin-
America, are also reported to be willing in varying degrees to
explore the prospects of a new Round in the expectation that this
might provide greater possibilities for the securing more
meaningful concessions of interest to themselves.
A Communique from SADC Ministers adopted on 20 July identified
"the key issue for Doha" as the achievement of a "development
agenda" encompassing negotiations on implementation issues,
mandated negotiations on agriculture and trade in services and
negotiations on industrial tariffs with special emphasis on tariff
peaks and escalations. The Communique also said that "SADC
recognises that issues such as trade and investment, competition
and e-commerce are important, but will have to be prepared for
subsequent negotiations".
In terms of specific issues not mentioned above, the TRIPS review
discussions are reportedly focusing on pharmaceuticals and demands
for flexibility to pursue public health objectives. Proposals for
an international registration system for "geographic indications"
in respect of wine and spirits products (the Port, Sherry, Ouzo,
Grappa issue) have also been tabled. The mandated negotiations on
services are reportedly making progress with guideline statements
emphasising the right of governments to choose in order to assuage
fears that the GATS will lead to forced privatisation of key
public services or the undermining of governments' rights to
regulate. A "closed list" approach is likely, with discussions now
proceeding on proposals for the free movement of natural persons.
Only a few countries, Japan among them, have proposed placing
"contingent remedies" (anti-dumping and countervailing duties) on
the Doha agenda for purposes of clarifying the application of
existing rules, but many delegations have yet to express
themselves on this issue.
D. Assessment and Perspectives
The differences between delegations, both on the objectives and
scope of the Ministerial Meeting in Doha and on the broader
question of what type of negotiations should ensue, suggest that
there are several possible scenarios with very different
implications.
The first, alluded to as a warning in the official report on The
Current State of Preparatory Work, is that Doha like Seattle will
end with no substantial agreement. Officials appear to be working
to avoid a complete fiasco by ensuring that there are some
"positive announcements" at Doha - at the very least on some
"implementation issues" which are seen as a confidence-building
exercise and on China's accession, which we were told, is almost
finalised. As indicated above, WTO officials fear that if Doha is
seen as another failure, it could result in the downgrading of the
organisation and of multi-lateral trade negotiations. More
significantly, some fear that this would lead to a strengthening
of partisan trade blocs led by particular developed country
regions and embracing selected developing countries to the
exclusion of many other poor countries.
The second possible outcome of Doha is that there is some
agreement on aspects of the "built in" agenda (implementation,
reviews and mandated negotiations) that take these forward in some
respects, perhaps coupled with a general statement of intent to
begin preparations for a possible new Round. The third possibility
is that Doha launches a new Round.
Within the second and third possibilities, several permutations
are of course possible with different emphases on "re-balancing"
and developmental issues on the one hand and "new issues" proposed
by developed countries on the other.
Our own assessment is that the balance of forces is now such that
developing countries can make significant advances in the
processes underway. Developing countries are clearly now more
active, and the processes while still disadvantaging small
countries with limited budgets appear to be more open than they
were before Seattle. We were repeatedly told that the WTO is a
member-driven organisation, and that members who are dissatisfied
with the outcome of its proceedings can in effect veto agreements.
Developing countries appear to be more aware of their power and to
be more willing to exercise it.
On the other hand, while there are few that can deny the
inequities, imbalances and structured disadvantages for developing
countries inherent in for example the current rules on
agricultural subsidies, it is not evident to us that the demand
for significant structural change to benefit developing countries
requiring significant adjustment by developed economies is as yet
hegemonising current processes. We were told that the image which
best captures the process of negotiation within the WTO is that of
a banqueting table in which all bring something to the table and
receive something from it. The demands of developing countries for
"re-balancing" and of developed countries on "new issues" appear
to us to be regarded by many as equally valid issues in a trade-
off of equivalences, whereas the reality in a context of growing
inequality at global level is that the former ought to have a
clear priority.
Our delegation, and in particular Minister Alec Erwin, received
strong, and in our view well deserved, praise from several of our
informants for the active and effective role they are playing
within the WTO. At the same time, it seems to us that we still
have some way to go to advance and establish points made in the
February 2001 Egyptian-South African Position Paper such as
"...the key to sustained global economic growth lies in unlocking
the growth and development potential of developing countries" or
"The strategic objective in the new negotiations [must be] for
developed countries to undergo far reaching structural adjustment
in their economies [including] reducing a range of protective
support measures to inefficient "grandfather" industries and
sectors in the economies of developed countries, and thereby allow
a relocation of production and investment to developing
countries".
TUESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly:
- The Speaker:
Message from National Council of Provinces to National Assembly:
Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 9 October 2001 and
transmitted for concurrence:
(i) Education Laws Amendment Bill [B 55B - 2001] (National Council
of Provinces - sec 76).
The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Education
of the National Assembly.
(ii) General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance
Bill [B 57B - 2001] (National Council of Provinces - sec 76).
The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Education
of the National Assembly.
- The Speaker:
The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
relevant committees as mentioned below:
(1) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development:
(a) Government Notice No R.844 published in the Government
Gazette No 22646 dated 7 September 2001, Notice of
Determination of the Remuneration and Conditions of Employment
of Judges of the Land Claims Court established in terms of
section 22 of the Restitution of Land Rights, Act, 1994 (Act
No 22 of 1994).
(b) Report of the South African Law Commission on the
application of the Bill of Rights to Criminal Procedure,
Criminal Law, the Law of Evidence and Sentencing, Project 101
[RP 118-2001].
(c) Report of the South African Law Commission on Domestic
Arbitration, Project 94 [RP 119-2001].
(d) Fourth Interim Report of the South African Law Commission
on Simplification of Criminal Procedure (Sentence Agreements),
Project 73 [RP 120-2001].
(2) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development and to the Joint Monitoring
Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women:
Report of the South African Law Commission on the Review of the
Marriage Act 25 of 1961, Project 109 [RP 117-2001].
(3) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Environmental Affairs and Tourism:
(a) Government Notice No 1769 published in the Government
Gazette No 22516 dated 27 July 2001, Invitation to apply for
experimental fishing permits for the catching of Patagonian
Toothfish (Dissostichus spp) in terms of the Antarctic
Treaties Act, 1996 (Act No 60 of 1996).
(b) Government Notice No 1768 published in the Government
Gazette No 22516 dated 27 July 2001, the South African
Ratification of the Convention on Conservation of the
Fisheries Resources of South East Atlantic Ocean, made in
terms of section 231 of the Constitution, 1996 (Act No 108 of
1996).
(c) Government Notice No 1767 published in the Government
Gazette No 22516 dated 27 July 2001, South African acceptance
of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the
FAO Compliance Agreement, made in terms of section 231 of the
Constitution, 1996 (Act No 108 of 1996).
(d) Government Notice No 701 published in the Government
Gazette No 22516 dated 27 July 2001, Determination of fees
payable in respect of applications for and issuing or granting
of rights, permits and licences, made in terms of section 25
of the Marine Living Resources Act, 1998 (Act No 18 of 1998).
(4) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Education. The Report of the Auditor-General contained in the
following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration and report:
Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Education for
2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 125-2001].
(5) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Health. The Report of the Auditor-General contained in the
following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration and report:
Report and Financial Statements of the South African Medical
Research Council for 2000-2001, inluding the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 122-2001].
(6) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance:
(a) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of
Seychelles and the Government of the Republic of South Africa
for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of
Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income, tabled in
terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory memorandum to the Agreement.
(7) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Defence:
(a) Security Agreement between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the French Republic
concerning the Exchange of Classified Information in the Field
of Defence, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(b) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
on Defence Cooperation, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of
the Constitution, 1996.
(c) Arrangement between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland concerning Mapping / Survey Cooperation and
the Exchange of Geographic Materials between the Directorate
Geospatial Information, South African National Defence Force
and the Defence Geographic and Imageri Intelligence Agency,
UK, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution,
1996.
(d) Arrangement between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland concerning the Provision of Personnel of the
United Kingdom Armed Forces and the United Kingdom Ministry of
Defence to advise the Department of Defence of the Republic of
South Africa on Aspects of Democratic Defence Management,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(e) Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement between the
Government of the Republic of South Africa as represented by
the Minister of Defence and the Department of Defence of the
United States of America, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of
the Constitution, 1996.
(f) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa as represented by the Minister of Defence and the
Government of the United States of America as represented by
the Department of Defence concerning Exchange of Research and
Development Information, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of
the Constitution, 1996.
(g) Report and Financial Statements of the Armaments
Corporation of South Africa Limited for 2000-2001.
(8) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Minerals and Energy:
Report and Financial Statements of the South African Nuclear
Energy Corporation Limited for 2000-2001.
(9) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Transport:
Financial Statements of the South African Civil Aviation Authority
for 2000-2001.
(10)The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Communication. The report of the Auditor-General contained in the
following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts for consideration and report:
Report and Financial Statements of the Government Communication
and Information System for 2000-2001, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 12 -
Government Communication and Information System for 2000-2001 [RP
111-2001].
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
The Intergovernmental Fiscal Review for 2001 [RP 174-2001].
- The Minister for the Public Service and Administration:
(1) Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Public
Service and Administration for 2000-2001, including the Report of
the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 24 -
Public Service and Administration for 2000-2001 [RP 15-2001].
(2) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Management
Development Institute for 2000-2001, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001.
(3) Report and Financial Satements of the Public Service Commission
for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 128-2001].
- The Minister of Correctional Services:
Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Correctional Services for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 6 - Correctional Services for 2000-2001 [RP 148-2001].