National Assembly - 25 October 2001
THURSDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2001 _____
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
_____
The House met at 14:01.
The Chairperson of Committees took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr M R BALOYI: Chairperson, 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 concern reports that the Hout Bay Ratepayers’ Association is opposed to the handing over of land by authorities to the community of Imizamo Yethu informal settlement;
(2) believes that the resistance by the predominantly white Hout Bay ratepayers to the handing over of this land reflects the determination of this organisation to defend white privileges which they got under apartheid rule; and
(3) calls on the Hout Bay ratepayers to desist from resisting change and to work towards a fully integrated nonracial community of Hout Bay.
[Applause.]
Mr M L DA CAMARA: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes that a Mpumalanga mother is suing the state on behalf of her daughter for deliberately withholding information which may have prevented her from transmitting HIV to her child;
(2) further notes that -
(a) there are an estimated 70 000 mother-to-child transmissions of
the HI virus each year; and
(b) a once-off dose of Nevirapine costing a mere R30 would decrease
this risk by at least 50%;
(3) recognises that President Mbeki must take responsibility for this failure by the state; and
(4) calls on the Government to change its policy before many thousands more children are infected, and the state has to pay millions in damages.
Mr V B NDLOVU: Chairperson, 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) congratulates and compliments the police of Springfield Park in Durban on their success in foiling an ambush and a cash heist on Tuesday which involved an estimated R1 million;
(2) further compliments these policemen and policewomen on tracking down these robbers, and making subsequent arrests in the midst of gunfire targeted at them; and
(3) believes that such morale and motivation will gradually decelerate the rate of crime in our society and entrench peace and security.
Mr R M MOROPA: Chairperson, 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 water cuts in Tafelsig by the DA-controlled Unicity continue unabated despite widespread condemnation of this inhumane action;
(2) further notes that the continued water cuts affect mainly the poor and the unemployed in the community of Tafelsig;
(3) believes that everyone has a basic right to water and the water cuts by the DA-controlled Unicity are an onslaught on this basic human right;
(4) reiterates our condemnation of the water cuts in Tafelsig; and
(5) calls on the DA-controlled Cape Town Unicity to make water available to all, especially the poor.
[Applause.]
Mrs S M CAMERER: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) four Cabinet Ministers failed or refused to attend a conference
on sex tourism which focused on the sexual exploitation of and
trafficking for sexual purposes in children and women held in
Cape Town last week;
(b) sex tourism and trafficking in women and children for sexual
exploitation has become a significant problem for South Africa
in general and Cape Town in particular; and
(c) although South Africa's laws are shockingly inadequate to cope
with this problem, nevertheless the Department of Justice has
put the drafting of a law to outlaw trafficking and sex tourism
on hold; and
(2) therefore calls on the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to revise this decision, in order to protect children and women against this increasingly prevalent criminal activity, and calls on the Government to show more commitment to protecting our children and women from sexual exploitation.
Mr T ABRAHAMS: Chairperson, 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) reminds the Government that the homes of thousands of residents in the Cape Town Metropole were destroyed during the recent floods;
(2) notes that President Mbeki visited the affected areas and declared 13 townships disaster zones;
(3) recalls that the MEC for Social Services and Poverty Relief, Mr David Malatsi, promised financial assistance to the residents;
(4) places on record that suffering people to whom promises are made are not interested in the loving or distant relationship between national and provincial government, and that they deserve fair treatment from both; and
(5) calls on Government to heed the call of the people for relief in this time of distress.
Mrs D G NHLENGETHWA: Chairperson, 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 has won all six seats that were contested in the local government by-elections in the Middelburg Municipality;
(2) recognises that this is further confirmation of the confidence that the electorate has in the ability of the ANC as the only political party that can solve the challenges that face our country; and
(3) congratulates the councillors on their success and pledges the support of this House to work together to speed up change and to fight poverty.
[Applause.]
Rev K R J MESHOE: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) expresses its outrage at reports that some immoral male teachers are raping schoolchildren, impregnating them and, in some instances, even infecting them with HIV;
(2) notes with great concern that the increase in the rape of schoolgirls by teachers coincides with the introduction of pornographic Life Skills flipcharts in our schools;
(3) believes that encouraging children who are as young as eight years to discuss sexual intercourse, participate in, experiment and apply what they have learnt while using these pornographic flipcharts, is going to make little fornicators out of schoolchildren and also increase the incidents of rape of schoolchildren; (4) remembers that about two years ago two female teachers in Mpumalanga forced schoolchildren as young as eight years to have sex in the classroom; and
(5) therefore calls on the Minister of Education to -
(a) withdraw all the immoral and pornographic Life Skills charts
from schools, especially primary schools;
(b) stop the abuse and encouragement of sexual activity of
schoolchildren by those teachers who are perverts and use
pornography to seduce innocent, unsuspecting children;
(c) stop teaching primary schoolchildren how to put on condoms ...
[Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Mr M T GONIWE: Chairperson, on a point of order: I would like you to rule that that film show over there is totally out of order. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, can I address you on a point of order?
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I have not given you the opportunity to speak. Hon Goniwe, we will check and come with a ruling on that. Hon member, do you want to complete your notice of motion? You have not completed it. I think you had about two minutes. [Interjections.]
Mr L M GREEN: Thank you. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Just complete your motion, hon member.
Rev K R J MESHOE:
(5) therefore calls on the Minister of Education to -
(a) withdraw all the immoral and pornographic Life Skills charts
from schools, especially primary schools;
(b) stop the abuse and encouragement of sexual activity of
schoolchildren by those teachers who are perverts and use
pornography to seduce innocent, unsuspecting children;
c) stop teaching primary schoolchildren how to put on condoms ...
[Time expired.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
Dr P W A MULDER: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek het … [Mr Chairperson, I have …]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, at that corner, you are making a noise. Can you please keep quiet? The business of the House is still on.
Dr P W A MULDER: Thank you, Chair. Maybe I should have brought my own pictures to attract their attention, sir. Next time I will do that. [Laughter.]
Ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek tydens die volgende sitting sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) kennis neem van die Adjunkminister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit, mnr Joe Matthews, se uitspraak dat kundige Afrikaners nie langer as landsburgers geïgnoreer of deur mense vervang kan word wat nie dieselfde ervaring het nie;
(2) ook kennis neem van mnr Matthews se erkenning dat Afrikaners ‘n belangrike rol gespeel het om Suid-Afrika se infrastruktuur te ontwikkel;
(3) die uitsprake van mnr Matthews verwelkom en hom daarmee vereenselwig en dit ten volle ondersteun; en
(4) in die lig van hierdie uitsprake weer eens kennis neem van die rol wat die Vryheidsfront speel om ‘n wen-wen-oplossing vir almal in Suid- Afrika te bewerkstellig, asook die VF se standpunt dat Afrikaners en die Afrikaanse taal se toekoms in Suid-Afrika bepaal gaan word en nie êrens in die buiteland nie. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[I hereby give notice that during the next sitting I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes the statement by the Deputy Minister of Safety and Security, Mr Joe Matthews, that skilled Afrikaners can no longer be ignored as citizens or replaced by people who do not have the same experience;
(2) also notes Mr Matthews’ acknowledgement that Afrikaners have played an important role in the development of South Africa’s infrastructure;
(3) welcomes and identifies itself with these remarks by Mr Matthews and fully subscribes to them; and
(4) notes once again, in the light of these remarks, the role being played by the FF in bringing about a win-win solution for all in South Africa, as well as the contention of the FF that the future of the Afrikaner and the Afrikaans language will be determined in South Africa and not somewhere abroad.]
Mrs N B GXOWA: Chairperson, 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 suspects involved in taxi violence in the Eastern Cape appeared in Umtata regional court yesterday;
(2) commends the police for a swift investigation and for bringing the alleged perpetrators to justice;
(3) calls on communities to work with the police to stamp out taxi violence; and
(4) calls on taxi associations to work towards resolving disputes through peaceful means.
Mrs B N SONO: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:
That the House -
(1) notes the failure of SAA and Transnet to fulfil an undertaking to report to the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises regarding the financial statements of SAA;
(2) expresses its concern at SAA and Transnet’s disregard for public accountability in view of the fact that taxpayers’ money is used to keep these entities afloat;
(3) questions why the Minister of Public Enterprises is refusing to make public the remuneration packages of top executives at SAA; and
(4) calls on the Minister to ensure proper transparency with regard to SAA in the light of financially questionable decisions taken in relation to this organisation in recent years.
Dr R RABINOWITZ: Chairperson, 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 that -
(a) the cost of fluoridation will be R30 million per annum;
(b) this amount could be redirected to providing water to some of
the 7 million South Africans who lack access to piped water;
(c) less than 1% of treated water supply is consumed by humans;
(d) fluoride could be supplemented by adding it to bread, mealie
meal or salt;
(e) the optimal dose of 0,7 parts per million in the water supply
requires constant surveillance, and that human or mechanical
error is inevitable; and
(f) doses above 1 part per million have serious implications for
health, including cancer, fluoride deposits in bone, kidney
damage, depressed thyroid function and weakened immunity; and
(2) therefore calls on the Ministries of Health and of Water Affairs and Forestry to suspend plans for water fluoridation or, if they refuse to do so, to provide simple mechanisms whereby provinces or municipalities can free themselves from the fluoride affront.
Mr A G LYLE: Chairperson, 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 pride reports of planned cultural festivities and sport activities which will take place at De Noon, near Milnerton, over the weekend;
(2) further notes that the aim of the planned festivities is to close the gaps between local people and foreign nationals; (3) believes that these activities will contribute positively to the fight against racism and xenophobia; and
(4) commends Sanco and other stakeholders for organising these festivities.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS: Chairperson and hon members of this House, we place before this honourable House the Telecommunications Amendment Bill for adoption. The process culminating in this Bill has been one of remarkable consultation and consensus-building. It has been described by some foreigners as one of the most democratic and can make our country proud.
The process was open, transparent and inclusive. Debates were vibrant because competing interests made sure of that. However, in then end, no one got exactly what they wanted because we had to balance competing interests and do what was best in the circumstances for the people of South Africa in the context of an asymmetrical society and an unequal economy in an unequal world.
In January this year, Cabinet decided to take a path of managed liberalisation for some of the key sectors of the economy, telecommunications being one of those. Such a decision was not easily made. It was deliberated upon at length and arrived at because Government had to walk a tightrope and balance the contradictions that exist in our economy, our society and the world.
The telecommunications sector is a major driver of the economy. It is a sector that is characterised by dynamism and rapid technological change. The National Research and Technology Foresight Project, undertaken by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology to reform South Africa’s science and technology systems, identified technologies and latent market opportunities that are most likely to generate benefits for South Africa. These were found to be in the telecommunications infrastructure. The project identified high priority and investment areas which should allow access. Here again, telecommunications infrastructure was high amongst these.
The President’s advisory council on ICT re-emphasised this importance. However, the challenge is to shape this sector in a manner that does not exacerbate the existing inequalities of lack of access, participation, ownership and control from those who have been historically excluded or marginalised. Yet, on the other hand we have to ensure an environment for business that lowers input costs, makes it competitive in the world and delivers fair value.
The Bill thus balances, firstly, universal access and service, which include infrastructure and affordability. It also balances local participation in ownership control and management between small and big industry players, yet allowing for foreign participation through the injection of investment skills and technologies that can assist in the creation of new services, opportunities and jobs. It balances the role of the public as well as the private sector. It also recognises that it is impossible for the public sector on its own to generate the huge resources required for the infrastructure needed to bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots, rural and urban communities, black and white, and the developed and underdeveloped areas and sectors of our country and region. It had to balance the progressive possibilities of convergence of technologies with the unintended consequences that can widen the digital divide if not managed properly.
Managed liberalisation allows the introduction of a second national operator, which will leverage state assets through the inclusion of Esi-tel and Transtel. It allows provision for a feasibility study which will introduce service-based competition. A study will be conducted in 2003 and such competition will be introduced in 2005.
Convergence of information and communications technologies has placed new challenges before us. Accepting this era of convergence, Sentech, another state-owned enterprise, is being positioned to play a significant role in Africa as a carrier of carriers. These inclusions give concrete expression to our commitment made also to the African leaders in the partnership for Africa’s development, as was stated by the President yesterday.
We have extended Sentech’s role to include the provision of international gateway services, to operate as a carrier of carriers and to provide multimedia services as a common carrier. We have also, on a nonexclusive basis, allowed value-added networks and ISPs to provide aspects of multimedia. Sentech will provide such infrastructure as is required of any common carrier on an equitable nondiscriminatory basis.
Such a direction may not please those whose view is that we should go the big bang route or for open competition that lets the market decide. History has taught us that the market can sometimes be imperfect. The current global situation is an example of such imperfection. Therefore, we must remember that we are a developing country on the African continent, and not a developed country.
Taking into consideration what has happened in Europe, where operators are debt-ridden and auctions were used to sell 3G licences as a way of raising the highest amount of capital, which ultimately was a failure, we in South Africa have opted to grant such licences to existing operators. Consumer interest and industry interests had to be balanced, but this cannot be done in a vacuum. The timing is also important. The conditions currently prevailing in the telecommunications sector globally, place certain imperatives upon us in which we have to make choices.
Industry needs certainty before they enter the arena of competition. Unless one has competition, the consumer does not come out the winner. However, the compromises made by different interest groups should, in the long run, contribute to some advantage. The thorny issue of pre-selection has been brought forward so that this service could be available by the end of 2003 and number portability by 2005, and we hope to introduce that amendment, too, in the process in the NCOP.
There are areas in South Africa where teledensity, the number of fixed lines per 100 people, is less than 5%. These are referred to as underserviced areas. Co-operatives or consortiums in these areas will be granted licences to provide voice-over IP, fixed mobile services and public pay telephones.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, you are making a great noise there. Please, can you just lower your voices?
The MINISTER: By law, due regard will be given to applications from previously disadvantaged individuals, groups or women from those groups, who own, manage and control their entities. I am particularly proud of the provision in this part of the Bill, which makes it mandatory for women applicants to own, control and manage their consortiums. [Applause.] This is in line with our objective of empowering women in the telecommunications sector. It gives me particular pleasure to state that there is something in this Bill providing for co-ordinated action to assist the sick, injured and distressed, through the creation of a public emergency system for the good of the public. For the first time, South Africa will have a nationwide accessible single emergency number. Everyone in the country, old and young, rich and poor, must know this number. We have to teach it to our children. The number is 112. My 90-year-old aunt will remember it, even though she is likely to comment that it does not exercise her mind. We thank the Minister of Finance for allocating R80 million for the realisation of this project during this year.
Despite widely held perceptions that powers and functions of the regulator were being undermined by trying to fix something that was not broken, it is important that the relationship between Government and the regulator is clearly understood. The powers of the regulator to take decisions independently, not only from Government, but also from other interests including the media, are crucial.
We need to ensure that the regulator is guided by policy and that it implements policy. The processes by which it does this should be simplified. Whilst the former has been excluded from the Bill, to be dealt with in the substantive Icasa Act, this Bill gives powers to Icasa to make final rather than intended recommendations, which have been streamlined, and discretionary powers have been granted to hold hearings and the ability to make regulations has been entrenched.
The regulatory processes have been shortened, as requested by all stakeholders. At the meeting of the President’s advisory council on ICTs, great emphasis was placed on education. The access of schools to the Internet is an important aspect of this. This Bill allows for a dedicated education network. A laudable achievement of this Bill is that a 50% discount or an e-rate on calls will be given to public schools and further education and training institutions.
Our Government, committed to the transformation agenda and the Reconstruction and Development Programme, remains fully conscious of its role in meeting the objectives of black economic empowerment. This has been achieved in this Bill, through set-asides of up to 30% for economic empowerment in major licences.
The universal service is to be restructured for greater efficiency, and the universal fund will be utilised to assist in expanding universal access by financing projects and subsidising a roll-out of public information terminals, the first 100 of which were launched in all nine provinces last week. Small and medium enterprises, co-operatives, etc will be involved in projects facilitating this universal access.
All that we have achieved in this Bill has been achieved despite the fact that we had to move from a market structure that had previously entailed an exclusivity period for Telkom, which we had to move to an initial public offering. Secondly, South Africa is a signatory to the WTO, and in 1997 it had indicated its intention to liberalise trade in basic telecommunications. This Bill, despite some views from other quarters, is consistent with our country’s general trade policy and specific obligations as signatories to the WTO and with the policies of partners. To achieve this was no easy feat. I therefore wish to thank in particular all the parties that participated in the public processes held by the Portfolio Committee on Communications. They were tenacious, sometimes unyielding, but this made the final outcome a product, I hope, all of us can live with peacefully.
Stakeholders that were active were the Development Bank of Southern Africa, which is an infrastructure funder, Icasa, the regulator, Telkom and future competitors Esi-tel and Transtel, the cellular operators MTN, Cell C and Vodacom, Vans and Sava, Multichoice, Sentech and others.
My special thanks go to the chairperson, Nkenke Kekana, who had to manage the various interests and focus on achieving the best product under the circumstances, for the benefit of all. I wish, also, to thank the members of the portfolio committee, many of whom were the voice of the consumer, for burning the midnight oil on many occasions, to ensure the best results they could achieve. Their role makes us proud of democracy and parliamentary processes in representing the interests of the majority of our people.
To the Director-General in the department, the Deputy Director-General, advisers and staff, I wish to say a big thank you. This huge task could not have been achieved had they not focused on the strategic importance of this sector, this country and this region in policy, and had they not given of themselves to walk the extra mile. They accepted in humility that sometimes there is another way to achieve what this country needs.
A special thank you goes to a few young black lawyers whom we dragged into this process, fortunately not kicking and screaming. We hope the exercise was an empowering one and that we have laid the foundation for new expertise in this sector.
I would just like to say, ke a leboga [I thank you]. Ndithi molweni bahlobo bam [I say hello my friends].
HON MEMBERS: Molo! [Hello!]
The MINISTER: I hope you can accept and pass this Bill. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Ms M SMUTS: Chairperson, may I express our thanks to our colleagues in the New NP and the FA for their debating time on behalf of Mr Gore and myself. Communications policy is in fact the first formally adopted DA policy. And, we oppose this Bill on behalf of all the three parties because it conflicts with our DA policy.
A few months ago, the hon the Minister executed a number of spectacular policy flip-flops around the question of whether Telkom should have one or two competitors. Today, she has taken the feat of flip-flopping to new heights. I would like to tell the hon the Minister that this is pure trampoline artistry. To force compliant ANC MPs in one week to change and excise clauses on fixed mobile and carrier preselection and then to change back on the day of the debate, as we were advised this morning, is frankly unbelievable. I heard the Minister referring to carrier preselect, which will now be dealt with by the NCOP, but I did not hear a reference to fixed mobile..
Naturally, it is the industry pressure at work again. In South Africa, it seems that the industry which leans on Government last, when time runs out, is the one that gets what it wants, also from a pliant Parliament. So much for principle and the public interest, alas.
The 1996 Act put us in South Africa on course for competition, first and foremost, by creating the basic regime for nondiscriminatory licensing by an independent regulator. This amending Bill departs from that approach; it licenses by statute. It also licenses by stealth, a matter I will get to under the subject of convergence. Government itself has essentially decided who gets the new licences - and it is Government itself - and now Parliament turns this into law.
Of course, there may be great merit in the idea of unlocking the value of
Esi-tel, Transtel and Sentech. But why not amend their own laws and allow
them to apply for licences together with consortium partners produced by
market forces and commercial processes? Are we going to have one
shareholding Minister with a finger in all three telco'' pies, not to
mention two of thecellcos’’? Is it the same Minister who must approve
and who can change the regulators’ licencing decisions and regulations
before they are gazetted?
In contrast to this centralising approach, we believe that it is real competition that delivers more lines and telephones at tariffs that people can afford. The Telkom model has now demonstrably failed in this respect. In return for exclusivity, Telkom had to roll out millions of lines. But it has had to disconnect a reported two thirds of the new lines because of nonpayment. Of course, it has to recover its costs elsewhere. Its anticompetitive behaviour towards the value-added network industry is no doubt explained by the fact that it had to compensate for these losses.
Unfortunately, Government has now, as a matter of policy, chosen facilities- based competition for the second operator. We received no real answer to the question why on earth Government insists that a competitor must build a second-last link into the end user’s premises. Perhaps it is because it is not Government who is doing the insisting.
We, for our part, believe in service-based competition with facilities roll- out built in as a right or obligation, where appropriate. We cannot stop Government from choosing pure facilities-based competition, but we do hope it will not overload the second operator with obligations like the Telkom roll-out. A second operator must be allowed to skim some cream to establish itself through the links it would build to big customers, especially in circumstances where this law will cut the umbilical cord to the facilities of the dominant incumbent after a mere two years when the baby cannot yet sustain itself.
We believe that the dominant incumbent should be accessible, always, to new players, with the regulator keeping a sharp eye on facility leasing, resale and interconnect rates, and that the new service-based operators riding on the existing family copper should be helped in every way by consumer devices like carrier selection which the hon the Minister threw out but which she now intends to put back in.
Roll-out in the name of the poor is the unexamined justification for everything Government does, but when it demonstrably does not work, real service-based competition must be given a chance, especially in the local loop which remains closed. New Zealand, for example, with a population of 3,5 million and over 400 local loop operators has some of the best teledensity and the lowest tariffs in the world. We are, of course, pleased with even the limited opening up of local access licences in areas with under 5% teledensity. I have always thought that the mom-and-pop business is the right model for South Africa. I must say that the bias towards female-owned businesses, now built unblushingly into this particular clause by our hon ANC lady members, could be just the right recipe: mom-and-mom companies. ``Your auntie in the telecoms business’’ will have a big challenge, but she is getting a wonderful licence. She can do anything, including the voice-over Internet protocol which is irrationally being denied to the value-added services.
Among the very few clauses we could in the end support were the provisions on Vans and Internet operators, but specifically because we managed to clean them up. It is shocking that this Bill tried, by subterfuge, to circumvent and reverse the rulings that Icasa made after a year-long enquiry.
Mrs M P COETZEE-KASPER: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I think I heard the hon member say ``your auntie’’. I would like to know if she is speaking about our Minister, or which auntie.
Ms M SMUTS: Madam Speaker, the new licencees - the member will find that her colleagues agree. I spoke about the new licencees for the local access licences.
It is shocking that Government was ready to destroy the private sector industry on which the new economy rides. Half of our Vans businesses had already packed up because of the ongoing disputes with Telkom, which refused them facilities in order to corner the market for itself. But in this respect we were able to do our job in Parliament, after the excellent input of the industry, and I am glad to say that Icasa’s work is now set in law. The one unresolved issue that remains is the refusal to allow them to use voice-over IP, putting them at a competitive disadvantage against Telkom.
It was possible to reverse the Bill on this issue because there were constitutional and other legal grounds at issue. The same applied to new proposed appointment and removal procedures for Icasa. I am glad to say that MPs from the majority party also showed a healthy impatience with the proposal which appeared to us to have come from Mr Eddie Funde. What was it doing in the Bill? I truly think that we are owed an answer. What were the provisions on Icasa doing in the Bill? [Interjections.]
I thought that the ANC MPs, if they will allow me, did better this time at applying their own minds rather than the mind of the Director-General, right up until the last afternoon, although he was quite openly leading their caucus at one stage. The separation of powers has never been a living doctrine in this committee, I am sorry to say.
This brings me to the subject of licensing by stealth. Government has been cheerfully insisting for seven months, in the face of ridicule, including our own, that there is such a thing as a fixed mobile service and that it has something to do with convergence. There is no such thing. The phenomenon is called wireless local loop, and it simply means that one can connect end-users to the fixed line through radio or frequency links. We cleaned up definitions until the so-called ``fixed mobile’’ could not mean anything except limited connectivity to a single cellular-based station. We did this to prevent fixed-line operators breeding little regional mobile cellular services which the existing fixed licence forbids.
What followed is depressingly familiar in this portfolio committee: the executives pulled rank at the last moment and the MPs collaborated. What was not familiar was the fact that a provision that we had already agreed to was changed overnight, before voting, to reintroduce wording capable of delivering geographical mobile cells by stealth. There is no point in debate and work on legislation if a majority of MPs are going to cave in to the executives, at the end of it all, to this extent, and the compromise that the chairperson drove with the industry off stage before we even sat down flies in the face of all transparency and public interest.
Today’s latest trampoline flip-flop should, I hope, teach him a lesson which he will not forget. My colleague the hon Mr Gore and I judged rightly in the case of a clause that really does try to deal with convergence that we would be wasting our time if we did any work on the unworkable. That was after our first attempt to assist. After that, we walked out one night to break quorum and we sat talking about other things on other nights.
Convergence means simply that whereas services used to be defined in terms of the medium over which they were transmitted, for example telephone services over fixed lines, the service rendered to the end-user is now independent of the medium. That implies technology-neutral regulation.
Furthermore, one now gets voice, data and video over one pipe, that is broadcasting, information, society services and telephony. So any attempt to define a service by its content is doomed. That is what happened to the preposterous multimedia licence for Sentech, or Multimedia, as I decided it was more appropriately called. It started life as a digital broadcasting service and looked very much like competition for M-Net’s innovations. Muti was lining up against magic. Now because it is constitutionally impossible to legislate such a thing under telecoms law, it changed first into a Heath Robinson interactivity device before settling down as a telecoms licence, still encompassing audio, video and so forth.
Now the whole point and the entire reason why we must have a new communications Act is that in the new converged environment where broadcasting, telecoms and information society services are transmitted over one medium, one cannot have a single regulation. One cannot have broadcast or telecoms licences. One has to separate the regulation of transmission, where a pipe can carry all of the above, and the regulation of content such as e-commerce or broadcasting.
This also instantly solves the South Africa constitutional requirement that broadcasting regulation is constitutionally protected from any executive involvement, whereas there can be an argument for a limited government role in telecoms. Hon members were trying to squeeze new services into old definitions, and it cannot work.
Unfortunately, all that has been achieved is a clause which is still unclear, which therefore gives Sentech whatever the department really wants to give it, which through industry effort at least safeguards their vested rights, but which does nothing for the country, sector or economy. In fact, it probably shuts down all e-commerce, because entities who provide e- commerce cannot be licensed, yet their services are included in the definition. And this from a department that is about to introduce an e- commerce statute.
There is no excuse for the majority MPs’ pleas of puzzlement and mystification about convergence. We had an intensive briefing on convergence law by the European Union’s experts last July. I do not know if the hon members remember that on the day after our briefing, we were supposed to take a slow boat trip down the Rhine. We missed that boat for various reasons. I do remember joking at the time that South Africa too was in danger of missing the boat.
May I say that we are missing the boat here. Let me hope that as in Germany, where we hired buses and roared off down the banks of the Rhine, here, too, we will catch up. But, I would like to say to the Minister that, with respect, her Bill ran aground and was shipwrecked on the very convergence, which she and her department continually invoke when she speaks about the digital divide. We have not begun to bridge it, quite the opposite. [Applause.]
Mr N N KEKANA: Madam Speaker, Dene is at it again. The DP has this
mysterious ICT policy that we have yet to see, and yet they keep on
referring to it, if ever the day does come when she produces this policy of
hers. There is one thing missing, I would like to say to Ms Smuts. South
Africa has two worlds in one. One world is connected to the Internet - it
has telephones. Another world has no access, even to a mere telephone
instrument. [Interjections.] We do not even have Nommer, asseblief''
[Number, please]. There are places in this country where there is no
Nommer, asseblief’’.
There is one more thing I would like to say just for her information: There was no executive influence. What she has forgotten is that Ministers are ANC members. In terms of their membership of the ANC, they are members of our study group here in Parliament - if the hon member has forgotten. The ANC respects separation of powers and we are not about to undermine that. [Interjections.]
The Telecommunications Amendment Bill before this august House has attracted a wide range of interest. The financial newspapers, foreign and local industry players, including even a foreign mission, all wrote to the committee and participated in the passage of this Bill. All in all, our committee received over 32 written submissions, and we conducted a week- long public hearing session.
On behalf of our committee, I would like to thank the industry players, academics and legal advisers who participated in this process. Many thanks to all the directors-general, departmental officials, the state law advisers and our committee staff who were available and lent support during many long hours.
During the process, we decided to engage stakeholders in an attempt to understand and accommodate legitimate concerns to the extent that was possible, in order that all interested parties could gain something from the Bill. This has been a refreshing and challenging approach and I can safely say that this Bill bears the fingerprint of almost every industry player.
Much was written and said about the proceedings of the committee during the amending stages. We have just heard about that. There were speculations upon speculations. There were rumours and half-truths regarding behind-the- scenes deliberations.
I want to tell Ms Smuts that in a democratic system of policy-making and participatory law-making it is unavoidable that there will be an open clash of vested interests. This is the norm in a healthy, competitive environment and this ought to be expected. Thanks to this very inclusive process, we have before this House today a Bill that has dealt fairly will all interests raised and which is constitutional.
The Bill is a decisive step forward and has always sought to strike a balance between various interests and objectives. We were challenged to introduce competition that would benefit industry players and end-users, while delivering universal service. Those who have basic telephony want more advanced services, while many in underserviced areas do not even have access to a public telephone. Further, the Bill safeguards existing investments and rights enjoyed by telecommunications licencees, while at the same time responding to the call for managed liberalisation of infrastructure and services.
The place of telecommunications companies naturally is to protect shareholder value, whilst our interest is to create a consumer-friendly, technology-neutral policy environment where connectivities are available at an affordable price. The Bill is the outcome of the desire to bring about a basket of new services and opportunities through a delicate balancing act.
The Bill has created access to the latest technologies and other opportunities for small towns and villages which were previously underserviced. This Bill will improve teledensity whilst simultaneously creating an environment for regulated competition in the urban areas to benefit consumers and companies.
High-level skills development is what our country needs urgently. The Ministry and the department should continue to expand in this particular area of skills development, and we must challenge South African companies to recruit and employ young entrepreneurs and university graduates, especially those from the previously disadvantaged communities, to be trained in high-level skills. South Africa must seize the initiative and leapfrog into the future without repeating the mistakes of developed economies.
This Bill accepts the paradigm of an information society. We must all accept that the information society is a reality and the growth of the ICT sector is a product of history, circumstances and development. It is critical that all countries benefit from the opportunities of the information society.
South Africa and the rest of the African continent must attract foreign direct investment by having a firm, clear and stable legal and regulatory framework. The digital divide between developed and less developed countries must be addressed and ultimately closed. We were all eager to know the outcome of the President’s initiative on ICT and we hope that the Ministry will, at an appropriate time, brief our committee about the exciting projects and programmes identified at the George ICT legotla.
This piece of legislation before us begins, even if it is in a small way, to address the challenges created by the convergence of telecommunications, broadcasting and IT. The borders between the various platforms of technology are fast disappearing. We need a strategy to address the challenges of multimedia and a converging information, communication and technology future. That is what we need. One needs a strategy first before one comes with a law, Madam Smuts.
The Bill affords Sentech, an entity owned wholly by the state, a licence to build a common carrier backbone infrastructure to provide multimedia services. The information society is primarily about the availability of broadband multimedia services for households, institutions and businesses. The building of an interactive infrastructure, with the capacity to carry large volumes of information at a faster rate than the current telephone infrastructure of Telkom’s network or the broadcasting television network, is an urgent necessity for our country.
South African businesses require access to a broader bandwidth and Sentech is positioned by this Bill to provide boundless bandwidth, either using satellite systems or optic fibre systems. There should be no argument against this noble intention by Government to build a Sentech network as a high-speed and capacious common carrier.
The Bill does not exclude any of the existing telecommunications licencees from providing multimedia services, nor is it creating an exclusive licence for Sentech. The Minister will invite more licence applications from those who seek to provide multimedia services similar to those of Sentech. Sentech is now in a better position to provide seamless, high-speed connectivity to Internet service providers, as many of these content providers are demanding more bandwidth, because of the inherent bottlenecks in existing telephone networks.
Despite this exciting future for Sentech, we must not forget that many of our people have yet to make a single telephone call. Basic telephony and the introduction of the second national operator to Telkom are necessary to build infrastructure and roll out services to our people. My wish is that, within 10 years, South Africa’s teledensity should match that of other developed countries. To achieve this objective of at least 40% teledensity, we require a realistic strategy and a vision that recognises the importance of building an infrastructure and a skills base that is able to utilise the latest technologies to provide advanced interactive services.
Today, television programmes can be delivered through the Internet and the Internet can be accessed through television. South Africans have experienced one of the infant forms of interactive television programming through the Big Brother show. Although the soap opera content of Big Brother might turn off certain viewers, its audience ratings demonstrate the powerful nature of interactive services.
This Bill is not preventing any broadcaster from televising its programmes in an interactive manner, except that the return path must be on a licensed telephone network. However, in the future, it will be possible to provide one pipeline for interactive television services. Now, to address the matter that has been raised more often - the competitive nature of our market. Let me put it this way: The introduction of competition in the telecommunications sector raises a number of issues which concern not only policymakers and regulators, but also potential new entrants, consumers, suppliers of telecommunications equipment and incumbent operators and service providers. There is no doubt that competition will, in the long term, lead to better quality of service, lower prices and the expansion of the network. But, we must promote competition in a controlled marketplace because it is difficult to monitor uncompetitive behaviour. It is easier for the regulator to deal with the possible misuse of market power by Telkom in a controlled marketplace.
South Africa is said to be one of the few countries that is introducing competition in the provision of public switched telecommunications services, while selling a large stake of its national telecommunications monopoly. This Bill sought to create a favourable environment for the second national operator, while safeguarding the value of Telkom. It was a difficult task, but we managed to achieve a fair balance between the two nonantagonistic objectives.
The second national operator will inherit the network and skills capacity of Transnet and Eskom. This will enable it to roll out services at a rapid pace and use the latest technologies to build a fixed mobile network, where possible. It will inherit a long-distance network and have access to a larger subscriber base of both the electricity utility, Eskom, and the telecommunications division of Transnet.
Of equal importance in the Bill is the guarantee for the second national operator of servitude rights held by Transnet, Eskom and SARCC. This provides for the right of way for the second national operator and will cut a lot of red tape regarding negotiations with each landowner for every kilometre of their network expansion.
The second national operator will also be entitled to the resale of Telkom facilities for two years on a commercial basis while they are building their network. After the two years, it may enter into a commercial agreement with Telkom for access to telecommunications facilities, but I would like to emphasise here that it must build its own facilities.
The Bill provides for the second national operator to enjoy a head start regarding access to the 1800 spectrum, which is important for the building of the wireless fixed mobile local access network. Once the local loop is unbundled, it will be able to lease capacity from Telkom.
There are many other benefits for the second national operator, including a favourable, fair and nondiscriminatory interconnection regime that will be closely monitored not only by the regulator Icasa, but also by the users of telecommunications services. The Bill has inserted a clause that demands that interconnection rates and agreements be made public. I think we will benefit from this particular disclosure, because for many years Telkom subscribers were disadvantaged because of an unfair interconnection agreement that favoured the mobile cellular networks.
We are confident that we will attract foreign players to the second national operator bidding process, despite a slowdown of many economies. The investment in South Africa offers better opportunities, not only in our country, but also on the whole continent. Newspapers have already begun to write about the spin-offs and prospects that will be created as a result of the second national operator licence. Today’s Business Day, for example, writes about the excitement of Motorola at the prospective opportunities presented by the second national operator. They speculate that -
… the tender is set to become the country’s largest investment project … and presents massive opportunities for equipment manufacturers and service providers.
Equipment manufacturers have apparently been - … talking to potential bidders for months; all anxious to win what could be South Africa’s largest communications contract for many years.
The network capacity of both Eskom and Transnet in other countries on the continent will offer the second national operator a footing on the African continent. The managed liberalisation timetable also offers predictability and thus guarantees a safe passage for its capital investment, which will be committed to infrastructure expansion in the short term. It will offer advanced and modern telecommunication services to customers and compete with Telkom head-on to service customers.
The second national operator is in a better position to enter into competition with and challenge the dominant position of Telkom. Telkom has enjoyed a monopolistic status for many years as the sole provider of telecommunications services. However, attached to its licensing conditions were stringent universal service obligations, including the roll-out of infrastructure and services to rural areas, which generally are not at all lucrative. This monopolistic environment up to now has meant very little price difference to the end users of services.
The improvements with regard to Telkom’s traditional problems of poor services and customer care have been remarkable. Although customers still experience problems, the network operator has met the various targets set out in its licence conditions. The strategic partnership of the Malaysia Telkom and SBC has now repositioned Telkom to face competition.
The fixed mobile convergence requires a technology-neutral treatment of all operators. Our mandate is to increase teledensity in our country and, therefore, we cannot restrict the use of a particular technology to rural areas only, as some of the submissions proposed. SMMEs will be licensed to roll out fixed mobile services in rural towns and villages. It is disingenuous to argue for fixed-line operators to use fixed mobiles in the underserviced areas only, while the cellular operators are not intending to use 1800 spectrum, apparently because of low teledensity.
As reported in weekend papers, Cell C will build GSM 1800 base stations in metropolitan areas only. This is unacceptable. We hope that in the long run mobile cellular operators will use the 1800 spectrum in the rural areas. Fixed mobile networks will be easy to deploy, will reduce maintenance costs for fixed-line operators and, once the initial capital infrastructure has been spent, revenue derived from cost will flow. This will ultimately benefit the consumer.
The committee received a wide range of submissions on number portability. The submissions could not put a definite figure on how much it would cost to implement and what the level of demand from current users of telecommunication services. It is estimated by some industry analysts that it might cost anything in the region of R500 million to R1 billion. Thus far the committee has been unable to determine the exact cost of implementing number portability, and has therefore considered it wise to leave the year of implementation as 2005.
It is also important for us to carefully consider the advantage of carrier preselection. We support the latest concession that the period of implementation be shifted to the end of 2003. Competition is also about choices. Consumers will have the ability to choose between operators when there is a better service from each of the operators. This could benefit the consumer and might lead to a fierce price war.
Our Bill has even attracted the keen interest of entities from the United States, and we appreciate the attention. However, we do not agree with many of their submissions that seem to say that we have departed from our WTO commitments. We have looked carefully at the WTO commitments that we have made, and we are confident that we have honoured all of them.
This Bill, of course, has many other benefits for all. It particularly empowers women, SMMEs and underserviced areas. While making provisions for Edu-Net and toll free line access to Government information, it also provides, as the Minister has indicated, an emergency number. But, my colleagues will address many of these benefits in detail later.
Thanks to the incumbent there has been unprecedented roll-out of basic telephony in our country and the building of a modern digital network. Today more clinics and schools in rural areas have access to telephones, and this has contributed to improving communication and services in this area. Notwithstanding that, much still needs to be done to improve teledensity and the roll-out of infrastructure and services in these areas. Much still needs to be done to enable everyone in our country to have access to a telephone line with fax capacity and low-speed data, and eventually join the information society.
It is for this reason that we are passing this enabling Bill to lay the building blocks for the future and to provide a better life for all. This is a good law and should pass the test of constitutionality. We are satisfied that this Bill has created a fair balance, it has tried to accommodate the interests of all and we would be surprised if the DP - although they talk about some mysterious policy - opposed this good law. We would be very surprised, but we would like to thank all other parties that have participated in this process. We have come up with the best legislation under the circumstances and, of course, we await further briefings and work regarding this particular sector. [Applause.]
Ms S C VOS: Madam Speaker, it is for good reason that the IFP started to refer to this Bill in its caucus as ``the Bill from hell’’. [Interjections.] I arrived here with my supporting and opposing speeches until I heard the Minister for myself today. Week after week our IFP mandate vacillated from outright opposition to qualified support when we thought that progress was being made and then back to opposition. Fourteen pages of amendments agreed to in the Portfolio Committee on Communications, and the one-minute-to-midnight amendments resolved last night and outlined by the Minister today, give a clue to the importance of this legislation and the intense negotiations which have ensued day and night over many weeks. In essence we have been confronted with the ugly face of state capitalism, and it has not been a pretty sight.
Much in this Bill is excellent, but the devil is always in the detail. Until last night in many respects this Bill prioritised the view of the telecommunications monopoly, Telkom, and effectively entrenched Telkom’s monopoly until 2005. The IFP implacably opposed this as anticompetitive and I had been directed to oppose this Bill in this debate in the strongest possible terms. Today my mandate has changed again.
Common sense has fortunately prevailed and we now find ourselves in the position of being able to congratulate the Minister for saving the day overnight on the issues of carrier preselection and number portability. Today, because the executive has finally agreed to amendments long proposed by members of this legislature, including many in the majority party, the IFP is able to support this Bill, with reservations. We anxiously await the text as mentioned by the Minister in her speech that will emerge from the National Council of Provinces as promised. This is clearly a matter of trust and also includes the matter relating to so-called fixed mobile services..
From its conception, starting off with the department’s policy directives, the passage of this Bill has been characterised by subterfuge, flip-flops and, I must agree with the DA, the heavy hand of Government interference. It would be churlish not to praise the highly competent chairpersonship of Mr Nat Kekana under very difficult circumstances. He was exemplary in the inclusive manner in which he attempted at all times to allow the portfolio committee to interact time and again with stakeholders. We all did our best, as the amendments attest to, but in politics that is often not good enough when fundamental issues are at stake.
The IFP would not compromise on the issue of carrier preselection and being enabled in 2003, and not as Telkom wanted it in 2005, and we are hugely relieved that today this has finally been resolved, as well as the promise of number portability after 2005. Better late than never. Of course, we have to publicly ask why this Bill, in its previous ever-changing lives before today, attempted to entrench Telkom’s monopoly at the expense of enabling the much-needed and critical investment in the proposed second national operator.
Many of us believe that the answer lies in the tension surrounding the forthcoming IPO of Telkom and the alleged strong-arm tactics said to have been employed by Telkom and its equity partner, Thintana, comprised of US and Malaysian shareholders. The nasty word ``blackmail’’ was even whispered in relation to threats to dump shares.
But Telkom, having lost the fight to block carrier preselection, which is one of the essential enablers of competition in the telecommunications sector, until 2005, must not feel too badly done by. It is still being allowed to keep its vice-like grip over many aspects of the industry, including value-added network services which the IFP opposes. It is still being allowed to retain its anticompetitive monopoly of voice-over Internet protocol and its legislative ability to continue to spread its tentacles throughout the industry, which the IFP also opposes.
But that is not all that is wrong with the Bill. The truth is that the committee worked hard and tried to do its best to fix up the mess it received. The Vans operators have won a victory of sorts in that they are finally properly defined along lines proposed by the regulator. You win some, you lose some. We started off with a complex, highly technical and unconstitutional Bill, which was riddled with flawed policies and ambiguous clauses. Finally, many constructive improvements have been made.
Cell C must be happy that, at the proverbial eleventh hour, another crucial amendment, we have been told, will also go through the NCOP. The issue of the so-called fixed mobile and call handover between cells has finally been resolved and their lawyers can put their sharpened pencils back into their pockets. The IFP wishes them well on their launch next month and looks forward to Cell C proving that competition can, indeed, drive prices-down.
It should be instructive to this Parliament that, in the passage of this Bill through the committee, a succession of aggrieved bodies representing billions of rands of investment in the industry in South Africa lined up with their expensive lawyers and ICT experts and presented nearly 70 kg of documentation, because I weighed it, and dozens of hours of debate. Remarkably, even the US government, as members have heard, petitioned the committee. This tells us that time is long overdue for this Government to develop an effective ICT strategy and policy framework for the country, and legislation which will ensure the stability of the sector and rapidly promote investment and competition.
This House must also be alerted to the outrageous attempt, in the first draft of the Bill, to hobble the industry’s regulator - the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa - strip Parliament’s portfolio committee of its powers to recommend the appointment of Icasa councillors to the President and, if that was not bad enough, to introduce an element of broadcasting into telecommunications legislation, which the department should know by now is unconstitutional. This, too, was thwarted.
M-Net and MultiChoice, no doubt, still feel stabbed in the back and the front over the issue of multimedia services which has not entirely been resolved to their satisfaction. Now, their lawyers can sharpen their pencils. Quite frankly, the IFP would welcome jurisprudence on the issue.
Finally, and ominously, it must also be recorded that many of the well- considered recommendations put forward by our regulator, Icasa, were ignored and the department’s barely veiled contempt for Icasa has set alarm bells ringing within the IFP and throughout the industry. Nevertheless, a luta continua: the struggle continues! [Applause.]
Ms N S MTSWENI: Madam Speaker, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, the ANC supports the Bill, as amended by the committee, because it reflects our policy of managed liberalisation of the ICT sector in the phase of globalisation and the convergence of technology. In the few minutes given to me I will address three issues.
This Bill streamlines both the application and the decision-making processes for telecommunications licences. This has been done because of the practical difficulties experienced in the recent application of the third cellular operator. At the core of this was the role of Government in the decision-making processes of the independent regulator and its relationship to Government departments. Although allegations of undue influence were never proved, the delay in issuing the licence cost the country dearly. An opportunity was lost to introduce competition early in the cellular industry, which could have created jobs and attracted foreign direct investment into the economy.
The saga of the third cellular licence brought to the fore the need for a stable, resourced and independent regulator. Sound decision-making and regulatory procedures are necessary to limit litigation. I am raising this against the backdrop of concerns being raised by stakeholders in the industry and problems related to the regulator. On the other hand, the very same stakeholders tend to undermine and weaken the regulator by poaching staff and certain expertise. Having said that, when something is done to address the concerns, the opposition parties, especially the DA, claim that this is political interference by the ANC-led Government.
The Bill allows the Minister first to invite applications. It also mandates consultation between the Minister and Icasa on evaluation criteria prior to publication of the invitation to apply. In accordance with international best practice, the Bill streamlines the application process by reducing the number of oral hearings and focusing on written submissions by interested parties or applicants. Again in accordance with international best practice the Bill confirms the presumed validity of licensing decisions pending litigation regarding such decision, so that the litigation does not delay the licensing process.
The Bill clearly indicates that, in the consideration of applications in terms of the Bill, due regard should be given to applications from persons from historically disadvantaged groups, and applications that promote the empowerment and advancement of women in the telecommunications industry.
The recent experiences with regard to the endless challenges of the decisions of the regulator have the potential to have a negative impact on investor confidence. We strongly feel that we must shorten the processes and procedures to be followed if the decisions of the regulator are disputed. It is in this respect that the ANC advocated the removal of the formation of the mechanism and arbitration committee and supported the current provisions.
The original Bill raised an important matter for debate concerning the process of appointment of Icasa councillors. The question is whether we should involve Parliament in this process or whether it should be the preserve of the executive, particularly in the light of the provisions of the Constitution.
As the ANC we feel that we should have adequate time to allow this debate to be taken to its logical conclusion. We objected to the current provisions, mainly because of the requirement that the President should consult or concur with the portfolio committee and Parliament before appointing the councillors. The ANC rejects the notion of the President asking for the permission or consent of Parliament in making executive decisions. Instead we support the reversal, where the legislature processes and makes a recommendation to the President, who will then take a final decision. [Applause.] Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, at the outset I need to say unequivocally that we will be supporting this Bill, irrespective of the fact that it may have certain shortcomings. One will never get perfectly drafted legislation.
I want to tell the hon Ms Dene Smuts, please, not to try and underestimate my intelligence. [Interjections.] [Applause.] She has a problem because of the colour of her skin. [Interjections.] She believes that people of a darker skin are irrelevant. [Interjections.] I want to tell her something else. Her party should be careful of its own RDP - Rejection of the Dark People. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
May I advise the hon the Minister - and I say it humbly, for who am I to advise her - that I think the law as it now stands … [Interjections.] Shut up, man! Shut up! [Laughter.] [Applause.] That hon member is not even greeting people in the corridors - who is he? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr S ABRAM: The problem here is … [Interjections.] … a superiority complex … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr S ABRAM: Ou Koos, my maat, ek het nie tyd vir vrae nie, asseblief. [Interjections.] [Old Koos, my friend, I have no time for questions, please. [Interjections.]]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon member! Yes, hon member?
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I hold no brief for these members here, but it is not parliamentary to shout at members ``Shut up, shut up!’’ [Interjections.] We must maintain the dignity of this House and the member is not doing that. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker … The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please wait, hon member. Hon Van der Merwe, I take the point. We should indeed try to control our tempers and speak to one another in a tone conducive to proceeding with our work. However, there is nothing unparliamentary about robust debate. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Please proceed, hon member. [Applause.]
Mr S ABRAM: Madam Speaker, I want to tell hon members here that …
… as julle Abram se kind aanvat, raak Abram se kind wild. [Tussenwerpsels.] [Applous.] [If you mess with Abram, he goes wild. [Interjections.] [Applause.]]
The Bill provides that Icasa will have certain powers. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that when Icasa - which has earned respect for itself within the sector as an independent communications authority - makes recommendations, the Minister should be very circumspect in rejecting such recommendations.
South Africa’s favourable international ranking in the field of telecommunications is clear proof of the significance of this sector in our country’s economic and social life. It is in this context that we approach the Bill before the House.
Any discourse on the South African communications sector will be incomplete without particular reference to the communications giant, Telkom South Africa Ltd, which officially came into being on 1 October 1991 and whose honeymoon period ends in May next year in terms of the provisions of this Bill.
Telkom’s impact on the South African economy is best illustrated by its income over the past five years. In 1996 it was R13 091 million and this financial year, in 2000, it is R26 270 million. Its fixed assets almost trebled from R14 210 million in 1996 to R35 082 million in 2000. It is therefore financially viable with potential financial spin-offs for all sectors of our population, especially the historically disadvantaged sector.
In conclusion I want to make the point that when we approach measures of this nature, we should see in them facets which will advance the cause of the majority of the people of this country. Let us accept that many of those people do not know what a telephone looks like. They did not have access to a telephone. That is a sector of society that we are here to help promote and advance. Therefore it is virtually important to take note of who stands at the podium and from what background they come, in order to understand why they espouse certain views. [Interjections.]
The light is flickering so I am moving. [Applause.]
Mr R D PIETERSE: Mev die Speaker, mnr Abram het teenoor my gesê: Vat jy aan
‘n Abram, dan kielie jy ‘n leeu. Hy kan wakker skrik en vir jou byt. So
Mrs'' Smuts moet pasop. [Madam Speaker, Mr Abram said to me: When you
mess with an Abram, you are playing with a lion. He could wake up and bite
you. SoMrs’’ Smuts must be careful.]
It is an absolute honour to participate in this debate. This debate can be traced back to 9 February 2001. In his state of the nation address, President Thabo Mbeki raised the following points in this House: managed liberalisation of the energy, transport and telecommunications sectors; ensuring a necessary climate of certainty, particularly in these sectors; and the public listing of Telkom as part of a broad programme of restructuring of state assets.
If one reads the President’s address in the context of the New African Initiative, then one would understand and agree that the Telecommunications Amendment Bill as it is, is right in the middle of what needs to be done. Again, one should accept that the state of the nation address is a programme of action for the nation, and we should all participate in it unconditionally. We cannot be selective and pick out the things that we like and agree with and then participate in them.
Mr T D LEE: [Inaudible.]
Mnr R D PIETERSE: Die agb Lee gaan dom bly as hy nie ophou praat en luister nie. Gegee wat van ons verwag word, wil ek graag fokus op die uitstaande punte in hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp en dit sluit die volgende in: Die noodnommer, of 112 soos dit bekend sal staan, sal ‘n tolvrynommer wees. Die Minister mag met die nodige kennisgewing die noodsentrums instel, wat bekend sal staan as 112-noodsentrums. Deur hierdie nommer te skakel van enige plek in die land, sal die nodige noodorganisasie, hetsy die brandweer, die polisie, ambulans of selfs die kuswag, die inbeller te hulp kan snel. Hierdie noodsentrum sal die kapasiteit hê om al die amptelike tale, insluitend gebaretaal, te kan hanteer.
Tot op hede het ons altyd redes of verskonings gesoek waarom daar nie voorsiening gemaak kan word vir die gestremdes, veral dowes nie. Stel uself voor: Die ergste gebeur met ‘n dowe vrou op die platteland. Male sonder tal is die ontvangs wat so ‘n persoon kry, onaanvaarbaar en sy word dikwels aan haar lot oorgelaat. Sy kan nie normaal praat soos ons nie. Sy is in ‘n polisiestasie en die arme polisie verstaan nie gebaretaal nie. Ons sit met die probleem wat die vrou te doen staan.
Hierdie regering het ‘n beter lewe vir almal belowe, insluitend ons mense op die platteland en die gestremdes. Hierdie wetsontwerp spreek boekdele van daardie belofte. Verlede Donderdag het ek op Wolseley gepraat betreffende hierdie wetsontwerp. Die mense kon skaars hul opgewondenheid wegsteek, want hulle het geweet hierdie wetsontwerp praat van hulle. Wolseley is so ‘n nice plekkie tussen Tulbagh en Ceres. So is ook die mense van die Karoo. Die mense van Ladysmith en Zoar en Calitzdorp en Haarlem en Uniondale. Dis almal mense wat hulle asems ophou en wag, wanneer word die wetsontwerp in werking gestel. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Ons mense glo die regering is ‘n regering vir die mense. Dit is ‘n regering wat omgee vir mense. Ons mense het ook en wil ook, oor die lengte en die breedte van die land met ons regering en ons onderskeie departemente kommunikeer. Hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp se antwoord op hierdie vraag, is dat Icasa ‘n viersyfernommer moet bekend stel, wat die mense sal kan bel om na die departement deurgeskakel kan word. Dit beteken dat iemand wat hierdie nommer skakel, sal deurgeskakel word tot by die departement, en hulle sal die nodige informasie kan verskaf of tot verdere hulp wees.
Hierdie nommer kan natuurlik van enige plek geskakel word en sal ook in elke amptelike taal beskikbaar wees. Gegee dat Telkom ‘n mededinger of selfs meer gaan kry in Mei 2002, kan ons mense veral op die platteland uitsien na dienste waarvan hulle nog net gedroom het. Ons moet natuurlik vergeet dat die DA klokslag olie op die vuur gegooi het en die wysigingswetgewing as ‘n klug bestempel het. Die agb mej Smuts het haar, soos gewoonlik, male sonder tal aan vloermoerdery skuldig gemaak.
‘n AGB LID: Wat?
Mnr R D PIETERSE: Vloermoerdery. Geen hulp kan natuurlik van die res van die DA verwag word nie. Hulle is òf deel van die sirkus òf gedwonge toeskouers wat moes toekyk hoe die leier ontslae raak van ‘n intellektuele reus, of sal ek sê dwerg, mnr Peter Marais. Dít kom van ‘n party wat sê die werkloosheidsyfer is te hoog.
Natuurlik kan daar nie na hul leier as ‘n rassis verwys word nie, net omdat die gewese burgemeester ‘n bruinmens is wat taamlik baie bruin stemme, veral op die Kaapse Vlakte, vir die DA ingebring het nie. Aan mnr Bester en mej Walker word niks gedoen nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Mnr Marais se probleem het begin toe hy durf waag het om die strate na mnr Mandela en mnr De Klerk te vernoem, en nie na mnr Leon en mnr De Klerk nie. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Mnr Van Schalkwyk is ongelukkig nie hier nie, maar ek is doodseker sy mense sal die boodskap aan hom oordra. Hy sal nooit weer die hoofnar wees nie. Dié kroon sit stewig op die kop van die leier van die opposisie binne die opposisie. Mnr Van Schalkwyk se enigste kans op enige prys sal in die Republiek van die Wes-Kaap wees, maar dan moet hy gou speel.
Soos die DP agteraf was met mnr Marais, so was hulle ook in die komitee agteraf, en dit gaan regdeur. Die DP gee nie om … [Tussenwerpsels.] Is dit die Dalmations Party? Die DP gee nie om of ons mense telefone of geriewe kry nie.
Die mense van die platteland, die voorheen onderdruktes, sien uit na die inwerkingstelling van dié wysingswetsontwerp. [Tussenwerpsels.] Die ANC, die mense se party, die ANC wat regeer, steun dié wetsontwerp onvoorwaardelik. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr R D PIETERSE: The hon Lee is going to remain stupid if he does not stop talking and listen. Given what is expected of us, I would like to focus on the salient points in this amending Bill and these include the following: The emergency number, or 112 as it will be known, will be a toll-free number. The Minister may establish the emergency centres, which will be known as 112 emergency centres, with the necessary notification. By dialling this number from anywhere in the country, the necessary emergency organisation, be it the fire department, the police, ambulance or even the coast guard, can rush to the caller’s assistance. This emergency centre will have the capacity to be able to handle all the official languages, including sign language.
To date we have always looked for reasons or excuses why provision could not be made for the disabled, particularly deaf people. Imagine this: The worst happens to a deaf woman in a rural area. Countless times the reception that such a person receives is unacceptable and she is often left to her own fate. She cannot talk normally like we can. She is at a police station and the poor police do not understand sign language. We then have the problem as to what the woman should do.
This Government promised a better life for all, including our people in rural areas and the disabled. This Bill speaks volumes about that promise. Last Thursday I spoke in Wolseley regarding this Bill. The people could barely conceal their excitement, because they knew that this Bill was referring to them. Wolseley is a nice place between Tulbagh and Ceres. So are the people of the Karoo. The people from Ladysmith and Zoar and Calitzdorp and Haarlem and Uniondale. These are all people who are holding their breath and waiting for the Bill to come into effect. [Interjections.]
Our people believe the Government is a Government for the people. It is a Government which cares about people. Across the length and breadth of the country our people have, and also want to, communicate with our Government and our various departments. This amending Bill’s answer to that question is that Icasa must introduce a four-digit number which people can dial to be put through to the department. This means that someone who dials this number will be put through to the department, and they will be able to provide the necessary information or be of further assistance.
Naturally, this number can be dialled from anywhere and will also be available in all official languages. Given that Telkom will have one or even more competitors in May 2002, our people in the rural areas in particular can look forward to services of which they have only dreamed. Of course, we must forget that the DA regularly threw oil on the fire and labelled the amending legislation a farce. Countless times the hon Ms Smuts, as usual, had a tantrum.
An HON MEMBER: What?
Mr R D PIETERSE: A tantrum. Of course, no help can be expected from the rest of the DA. They are either part of the circus or forced spectators who had to watch the leader get rid of an intellectual giant, or should I say dwarf Mr Peter Marais. This comes from a party which says the unemployment figure is too high.
Of course, their leader cannot be referred to as a racist, merely because the former mayor is a coloured person who brought in a fairly large number of coloured votes, particularly on the Cape Flats, for the DA. Nothing is being done to Mr Bester and Miss Walker. [Interjections.] Mr Marais’s problem began when he dared to name the streets after Mr Mandela and Mr De Klerk, and not after Mr Leon and Mr De Klerk. [Interjections.]
Mr Van Schalkwyk is unfortunately not here, but I am quite sure his people will convey the message to him. He will never again be the main clown. This crown is firmly on the head of the leader of the opposition within the opposition. Mr Van Schalkwyk’s only chance at any prize will be in the Republic of the Western Cape, but then he must act quickly.
In the same way that the DP was underhand with Mr Marais, they were also underhanded in the committee, and that goes right through. The DP does not care … [Interjections.] Is that the Dalmations Party? The DP does not care whether our people receive telephones or facilities.
The people of the rural areas, the previously oppressed, are looking forward to the introduction of this amending Bill. [Interjections.] The ANC, the people’s party, the ANC which is governing, supports this Bill unreservedly. [Applause.]]
Mr L M GREEN: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, hon members, telecommunications is all about being connected. This Bill limits the opportunity to diversify our telecommunications industry, thus constraining the potential speed of social and economic growth that this country so badly needs. Communications, as we all are aware, is a human activity that includes, amongst others, transactional arrangements, positive human enablement and economic opportunity. In other words, the diversity in human needs demand, therefore, diversity in our communications options and services.
If this Bill becomes law, our society will still be one that is disadvantaged by relatively high telephone costs. Telkom still remains a protected parastatal. Yet this Bill, if it was truly interested in deregulating the telecom market, would have limited the anticompetitive operations of Telkom.
This Bill creates two sets of problems: Firstly, it fails to generate confidence in our society’s ability to develop its competitive competencies, and secondly, it especially fails in its social responsibility to narrow the digital and communications divide in our nation. Telecommunications is not about compromises with parastatals such as Telkom. It is about cutting costs, market leadership and rapid growth. Telkom underscores in these areas.
The Government’s about turn in allowing for only one new fixed-line licence must take responsibility for the tardiness in the building of value of our telecom system. It has been shown that where countries aggressively liberalise their telecommunications industry, the overall growth benefits to those countries increased proportionately.
The amendments to this Bill entrench state interference in the process of open market democracy. Prior to the latest amendments, this Bill showed promise of stability and potential growth in the telecommunications sector. It is for these reasons that the ACDP will abstain from voting in favour of this Bill.
Dr P W A MULDER: Voorsitter, vergun my eers ‘n ongewone woord van
gelukwensing aan mnr Pieterse, wat hier in ANC-Afrikaans met ons mooi
gepraat het. Ek dink dit is die eerste keer dat die woordjie vir
tantrum'' in Engels, die Afrikaansevloermoer’’, hier gebruik is, vir
die Hansard. Ek dink dit is baie goed en ons gaan nog ver kom op dié
manier.
Hierdie is ‘n baie tegniese wetsontwerp, wat as hoofdoel het om die omgewing te beskryf en te reguleer nadat Telkom se eksklusiewe periode verstryk het. Die wêreld van kommunikasie en telekommunikasie is een van die mees dinamiese, met daaglikse nuwe tegnologiese deurbrake wat verander van tyd tot tyd, en dit bied ‘n uitdaging aan alle lande se parlemente en wetgewers om by te hou.
Die uitdaging vir Suid-Afrika en hierdie Parlement is om met wetgewing en wetswysigings te sorg dat ons nooit by die wêreld agter raak nie. As mens eenmaal agter raak, gaan mens nooit weer bykom nie. Dit is wat so moeilik is in hierdie wetsontwerp om by te kom by die werklikhede van Suid-Afrika en ook die tegnologie aan die ander kant in ag te neem.
Die portefeuljekomitee het letterlik vir dae lank oggend, middag en aand gesit - ongelukkig vanweë my nuwe verpligtinge kon ek talle sittings slegs op die televisiemonitor volg. Ek moet tog die voorsitter, mnr Nat Kekana gelukwens met die wyse waarop gepoog is om soveel inspraak moontlik in die wetsontwerp toe te laat. Ek is reeds 13 jaar in die Parlement en ek moet eerlikwaar sê, 14 bladsye amendemente sou nie voor 1994 gebruiklik wees nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Ek het geen pensioen nie, nie op die vorige een nie.
Soos met alle wette, is daar positiewe en negatiewe aspekte in hierdie wetsontwerp. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Dr P W A MULDER: Chairperson, firstly, allow me to extend an unusual word
of congratulations to Mr Pietersen who spoke beautifully to us in ANC-
Afrikaans here. I think this is the first time the Afrikaans word for
tantrum'', viz the wordvloermoer’’, has been used here, in Hansard. I
think that this is very good and that we are going to go a long way in this
manner.
This is a very technical Bill and it has as its main objective to describe and regulate the environment after Telkom’s exclusive period has expired. The world of communication and telecommunications is one of the most dynamic, with new technological breakthroughs daily which change from time to time, and this presents parliaments and legislators in all countries with a challenge to keep up.
The challenge for South Africa and this Parliament is to ensure, by way of legislation and statutory amendments, that we never fall behind the rest of the world. Once one falls behind, one will never catch up. This is what is so difficult in this Bill, namely to come in line with the realities of South Africa, whilst at the same time taking technology into consideration.
The portfolio committee literally sat morning, noon and night for days on end - unfortunately, due to my new duties, I was only able to follow several sittings on the television monitor. I really must congratulate the chairperson, Mr Nat Kekana, on the manner in which an attempt was made to allow as much input as possible to be given in relation to this Bill. I have been in this Parliament for 13 years now, and I must honestly say that 14 pages of amendments would not have been customary before 1994. [Interjections.] I have no pension, not on the previous one.
As with all legislation, there are positive and negative aspects to this Bill.]
The FF supports, for example, the Minister and the director-general in the establishing of the new 112 emergency centres that will enable end users to be connected to it by dialling 112. I think there are a lot of positive things in that and much good can come from that.
However, there are also quite a few clauses that will create problems in future. On the negative side, for example, there was the confusion - I said here ``there is the confusion’’, but I change it now to there was the confusion - on the issue of carrier preselection, and promises have been made that this will be addressed in the NCOP.
So, at this stage, we are still keeping our options open, but I think I will advise my caucus to vote for the Bill the moment it is clear how it will all end up.
Miss M N MAGAZI: Mr Chairperson, hon members, comrades and compatriots, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament passed the Telecommunications Act, Act 103, in 1996. The Act has 17 objectives. The last objective, that is, the 17th one, was to promote the empowerment and advancement of women in the telecommunications industry. I wonder, and I just want to ask the industry, how far we have gone in respect of this objective. I want our major operators to report to Parliament on how they have contributed towards objective 17 of the Telecommunications Act.
I want the operators to give us a report that indicates their performance in respect of this objective over the past five years. I want to propose that the Portfolio Committee on Communications should call all operators to table, in Parliament, a report on how they have ensured that the primary objective of the Telecommunications Act, Act 103 of 1996, have been met.
During the public hearings on the amendment to the Act, I did not hear anyone addressing the issue of how the promotion and advancement of women in telecommunications would be dealt with. I would like to call on Telkom, Vodacom, MTN, Cell C and other providers to take all the objectives of the Act seriously, particularly objective 17. I call in particular on Telkom, our major operator, to do its level best to ensure that their development programme should cater for the advancement of women in the telecommunications industry. We want more role models like Irene Charnley, Pinky Mohodi, Nkhetheng Vokwana, Joddy Desai and others.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, Minister, the telecommunications service is one of the most frequently used and important means of communication in the daily lives of the world, be it business or pleasure, national, domestic or international. We have Graham Bell to thank for the invention, and Telkom to thank for the better connection.
Telkom, being the leading organ for telecommunications in South Africa, has made its service available for years, and has served us on an exclusivity basis. At the end of Telkom’s exclusivity period, the Bill sets out to make available liberalisation and competition of the market that in turn would promote and enhance economic growth, national development and reconstruction. All that sounds extremely attractive.
Though a lot of competition would appear healthy, a strong framework and foundation is necessary. A thorough plan of action has to be put in place and the co-ordination of the process should be efficiently and effectively supervised. It is one thing putting pen to paper, but implementing the result intended through action is another. However, the Bill does appear to have investigated its avenues and calculated its intentions.
Telecommunications appear here to provide for growth and enhancement for the nation’s people and the Government, as well, is one of the backbones connecting us to the world and to each other. The need of the market is evident and a diminishing need is not only rare, but impossible.
The MF supports the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Mr Lee, can you help me to crack the whip as a Whip on that side. There is a big noise at the back, starting from your bench. Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, this Bill creates a legal framework for the South African telecommunications landscape, following the end of Telkom’s monopoly.
Despite a lot of technical things, the main question is the extent to which the telecommunications industry must be regulated or left to the trends in the free market with competition and business as the main determining factors. The AEB stands firmly for the free market with the minimum of state interference. We foresee a South Africa where civil society will play a greater role and Government will play a lesser part.
The question is whether this important sector of the telecommunications should be left to the free market alone. We must keep in mind that we are not talking about the market for cars, furniture or refrigerators, but we are talking about the most important requirement that a country as a whole must have, namely wall-to-wall communications facilities. Why is this so important? May I quote one example? Die veiligheid op ons plase is een voorbeeld. Die landbou-organisasies het voorstelle vir landelike veiligheid gemaak wat daarop neerkom dat boere in ‘n selfoonnetwerk met mekaar in onmiddellike kontak moet kan kom. Daar is egter ‘n probleem. Daar is baie afgeleë gebiede wat eenvoudig nie selfoonontvangs het nie, en net anderkant die werf staan sowel ‘n MTN- as ‘n Vodacomtoring en daar is dubbele dekking. As ons alles aan die vryemark oorlaat, gaan daar altyd gebiede wees wat geen dekking geniet nie. Daarom moet daar steeds ‘n mate van regulering wees. Dit is een van daardie bedrywe.
Natuurlik kon hierdie wysigings verder gegaan het. Die agb Smuts het baie van die gebreke uitgewys, maar ons moet in gedagte hou dat ons met hierdie wetsontwerp beweeg van ‘n totale monopolie na ‘n groter mate van beheerde kompetisie. Om nou terstond oor te gaan na volle deregulering sal nie werk nie. Dit is inderdaad so dat baie van die verbeterings wel op nommer 99 aangebring is, soos die saak oor die preseleksie. Ons vra nie wanneer die verbeteringe aangebring is nie, maar of dit gedoen is. In die lig van al hierdie oorweginge gaan die AEB hierdie wetswysiging ondersteun. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The safety on our farms is one example. The agricultural organisations made proposals for rural safety which amount to the fact that farmers should be able to contact one another immediately by means of a cellphone network. However, there is a problem. There are many remote areas which simply do not have cellphone reception, though just a few metres away from the farms there are both MTN and Vodacom towers, so that there is double coverage. If we were to leave everything to the free market, there would always be areas that have no coverage. For that reason there must still be some degree of regulation. It is one of those industries.
Of course these amendments could have gone further. The hon Smuts pointed out many of the deficiencies, but we must bear in mind that with this Bill we are moving from a total monopoly to a greater degree of controlled competition. It simply would not work if we were to change over to complete deregulation immediately. It is indeed true that many of the improvements were made at the eleventh hour, for example in the case of preselection. We are not asking when the improvements were made, but whether they were made. In view of all these considerations the AEB will support this statutory amendment.]
Mr V C GORE: Chairperson … [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: It seems we have a problem with the sound.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Can we look at it quickly, please. I think the service officers should help with this. Continue, hon member.
An HON MEMBER: The member is not going to say anything anyway, he might as well continue. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Can you try, hon member. It is on now. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
Mr V C GORE: Mr Chair, opportunities are usually disguised as hard work, so most people do not see or recognise them. This must surely be the case with the ANC and the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. [Interjections.]
As with many of their incorrect judgment calls, the ANC will not lose out instead it will be ordinary South Africans, and most notably the poor who, in this case, will be deprived the choice of quality and affordable telecom services, and hence improved teledensity. I sincerely hope that in this case the old adage that fortune knocks but once whilst misfortune has more patience proves untrue, otherwise we as a country will suffer because of the errors of the ANC.
But let me cut to the chase. The DA is of the opinion that the 1996 Telecommunications Act should have been scrapped, thereby introducing a new Bill, a convergence Bill, which enshrines principles such as technology, neutrality, the convergence between broadcasting and telecoms, as well as the promotion of a strong and independent regulator. Instead we have an amending Bill that concerns itself with licensing by statute and centralisation through ministerial control, amongst other half-baked and misguided intentions.
Foreign investment, which is critical if not essential for the success of Telkom, will not flow into this country without a strong and independent regulator. The DA has long called for the full constitutional independence of Icasa. The independence of Icasa could have been further strengthened had this Bill ensured, for example, that the regulation making powers of Icasa had effective legal standing.
Now for the cloak and dagger situation created by the confusion over multimedia or ``mutimedia’’. Does the Government intend to provide multimedia services to end-users, or will it provide the infrastructure, or is this merely a clandestine move to allow Sentech to become the second national operator, in which case the Government would have significant shares in all five - or is it six - telecommunication operators in South Africa? We are awaiting an explanation on multimedia.
Another consequence, I presume unintended, or perhaps it is intended, is the requirement that all providers and developers of web pages, including banks, on-line shops and B2B in South Africa, will now have to apply for a multimedia licence, presumably for a fee. I predict that with such retrogressive legislation, South Africa will become the laughing stock of the entire globalised world. We will perhaps only be matched in terms of Internet restriction by countries such as China.
The entrepreneurial Vans which have over the years led the way in creating new businesses, thousands of jobs and adding value, have had their hands strengthened against the goliath, Telkom. However, they are still unfortunately prohibited from making use of voice-over Internet protocol. This completely ludicrous provision will, in the words of Icasa, be impossible to monitor, let alone enforce, due mainly to the freely available software over the Internet. This will unfortunately make thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of unsuspecting people overnight criminals.
Another glaring shortcoming in this Bill is its inability to adequately address the question of local loop unbundling. Why does South Africa not take its lead from the European Union in accepting that it is not economically viable for new entrants to duplicate the incumbent’s metallic local access infrastructure in its entirety within a reasonable time?
The EU’s approach and the DA’s approach would have been to ensure the second national operator had access to Telkom’s metallic local loop on a continuous, reciprocal and reasonable basis. This approach would avoid the situation in the future of one operator ripping up copper wires to a house or business so that another can put theirs in, and ensure that this country would continue to roll out universal access at affordable rates. Local loop unbundling would enhance competition, ensure economic efficiency and bring maximum benefit to consumers. The country demands local loop unbundling.
In addition to local loop unbundling, the eleventh hour, all to familiar now, executive flip-flop on carrier selection needs attention. We now have a situation in terms of which Telkom II will be guaranteed access to Telkom’s infrastructure until May 2004, and carrier selection will be introduced at an earlier date. Ideally, the DA would have preferred that to have been done now in order to promote competition resulting in cheaper calls.
With Telkom’s history of bullyboy tactics, it appears highly unlikely that they will provide the second national operator with infrastructure, thereby negating any positive outcome for carrier selection. The DA’s alternative would be to guarantee it access to Telkom’s copper forever.
I conclude with a quote by Maxwell Planck:
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
I hope that the people of South Africa will not have to wait for the ANC to die out before getting proper communications services, which will benefit them, their communities and the economy. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr E S MAGASHULE: Comrade Chair, hon Minister, comrades and members, of Parliament, I think the DA or the DP is confused, that is why the hon Mr Gore is calling the Chair ``Madam Speaker’’. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] It is important to note that the Telecommunications Amendment Bill comes after a critically important meeting of the Presidential International Advisory Council on Information Society and Development.
This Bill recognises the convergence of the telecommunications, broadcasting and information services industries. South Africa is still burdened by the special form of colonialism that has shaped our country. This legacy plays itself out in various spheres of our society, while the nature of public discourse is shaped by patterns of ownership and control, such as that the poor and disadvantaged remain marginalised.
As we are discussing this amending Bill today we should remember the President’s state of the nation address, which outlined his vision of growth and prosperity for all in South Africa and the continent. We should also remember that the President has elaborated on the goals of the ANC-led Government for the year 2000, stating that the poor are at the centre of Government’s plans for these coming years. The President’s announcement of a practical and strategic programme of action for 2001, with a call for unity in action for change, has created a communications environment with new opportunities and challenges.
The hon member Ms Smuts must take note that as we are talking today, we are not just talking about technology or telecommunications. We are talking about telecommunications and the people. Our efforts, as the Minister once said, to bridge the divide are primarily about people and not technology.
The state’s vision for telecommunications is one that balances the provision of basic universal services to disadvantaged, rural and urban communities with the delivery of high-level services capable of meeting the needs of a growing South African economy. It should be remembered that underdevelopment remains at the core of the social problems that South Africa is currently facing. Therefore the extension of an affordable and accessible universal service will enhance social and economic activities in historically disadvantaged communities by providing the necessary infrastructure, as well as by generating employment in the telecommunications sector itself, creating opportunities for meaningful employment and management, effective promotion of entrepreneurship, licensing opportunities and procurement, as well as set-aside policies.
The adequate attainment of universal access and service goals largely depends on meeting the requirements of affordability. The manner in which the cost of services is determined through tariff regulation is fundamental to the achievement of universal services. The telecommunications sector is key to the success of the Reconstruction and Development Programme. Access to communications facilities is not only necessary for delivery of services. In critical sectors, such as education and health, it also serves to stimulate the creation of SMMEs and offers a channel of communication to reinforce participation in democratic processes.
South Africa needs a strong telecommunications equipment supply industry in order to respond to the development needs of the country and to position South Africa appropriately for the twenty-first century. It will therefore be important that a national asset such as Sentech should be granted a licence to provide an international telecommunications gateway service, enabling it to operate as a carrier of carriers, and it will also provide multimedia services.
Sentech should therefore act as an integrated, high-quality network, providing value-added services and access to the international information highway to support the needs of South Africa’s internationally competitive industries and link its economy to the global system. Through Sentech improved communication with Africa will reinforce South Africa’s presence, by facilitating exchanges among institutions in the public and private sectors and by providing opportunities for technology export.
Sentech’s licence, for now, shall exclude the termination of international telecom services directly to the end-users in the Republic, but I hope, with time, Sentech’s licence shall include the termination of international communication services directly to end-users in the Republic. Sentech is already operating a digital terrestrial television transmitter in Johannesburg as a pilot demonstrator. It further plans to roll-out this demonstrator to include more metropolitan areas and a few rural areas. The significance of covering rural areas is to develop and offer services to underdeveloped areas as a contribution to bridging the digital divide.
With regard to underserviced area licences, the Bill seeks to stimulate SMME development in the telecommunications industry through the introduction of underserviced area licences in areas where the telebase is currently below 5%. Underserviced area licensees will be entitled to provide voice-over Internet protocol by May 2002. The question of women in terms of SMMEs is also taken very seriously by the ANC-led Government. The question of women’s equity, control and ownership shall be taken into account when issuing licences.
In conclusion, as the President said during the opening of Parliament, we are marching into the new era of the African century as Africans who have made the determination that this century will be 100 years in which we will cease to be victims of our circumstances and become victors. By passing this Bill, we will be ensuring that underdevelopment is no longer seen as being synonymous with Africans. Through the passing of this Bill, we are ensuring that poverty gives way to prosperity.
The DA, through Dene Smuts, says this is a flip-flop policy. There have never been different positions on the part of departments, Government, the ANC or MPs. The position has been one of managing liberalisation. [Interjections.] Secondly, the DA will agree with us that, in the history of South Africa, the ANC-led Government has been the only government to consult people and stakeholders, and take into account the views of minority parties. Dene Smuts should be happy that at times we listen to her illogical views, but there is no way we can take the illogical views of the DA and make them inputs of the ANC. [Interjections.]
It is also surprising that parties such as the ACDP and the FA, which have never attended - I think the public must know this a single public hearing or a portfolio committee meeting come here and project an image as if they have participated in all the discussions. [Interjections.] There is no way that the ``Green Party’’ can abstain from participating here. In fact, that would be good, because we do not need their vote. [Interjections.]
There is nothing such as Government interference here, as the IFP is actually saying. There is no monopoly by Telkom here. I think this Bill is very clear and the ANC would like to commend it to members of Parliament. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS: Chairperson, before I proceed, I think I need to make a correction to the translation that was made of Mr Pieterse speech. He spoke about “gestremdes”, and``gestremdes” refer to disabled people, not handicapped people. Can Hansard please check and correct that.
This is indeed a Bill about people, but as we indicated before, it is balancing the competing interests, so that we are not technology driven but needs driven. The needs of the people must drive us and not technology. That is what we have tried to achieve by this. [Interjections.]
The second thing is that it seems to me that, particularly from the DP, there is a lack of understanding about something. One can have all the Vans and all the ISPs that one wants, but unless one has the infrastructure on which they have to run whatever they are doing, we will never be able to create the jobs or be able to have access to all these things, for both rich and poor. We do not govern only on behalf of the poor. We always take into consideration the rich, but the priority is not the rich, the priority is indeed those who have always been on the margins.
Therefore, I would like to say I was quite surprised when I listened to the hon Dene Smuts, because there was a contradiction in her saying they want to create jobs, and yet they do not want to have infrastructure, or they do not seem to focus on infrastructure. It is the big players that come in to lay the main infrastructure; that is why we have had to keep this balance. In doing that balancing act we have taken big as well as small players into consideration, because it was indeed an open process. To Mr Aucamp I would like to say: Ek dink veiligheid op die plase is baie belangrik. [I think that safety on the farms is very important.]
When we said we would have this clause about a public emergency service put into this Bill, it was precisely to attend to the fact that …
… dit gaan nie net oor die veiligheid van die boere op die plase nie, dit gaan oor die veiligheid van al die mense. Daar is baie mense wat in die lokasies woon wat nie telefone het nie, wat nie die polisie of ‘n ambulans kan ontbied nie. As ons dus praat van veiligheidsmaatreëls praat ons van die mense, en nie net van dinge wat moet gebeur om tegnologie te hê nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[… it does not only concern the safety of the farmers on the farms, it concerns the safety of all the people. There are many people living in the locations who do not have telephones, who cannot summon the police or an ambulance. If we therefore refer to safety measures, we are talking about the people and not merely the things that have to take place in order to have technology.]
There has been a lot of talk about subterfuge and executive interference. If hon members believe this, they believe it at their own peril. I think everybody has a democratic right to lobby anybody, but it is up to this Government to say that we will make decisions, despite what we hear, in terms of what is best for everyone, balancing these acts that have said to us: We need to move. Maybe we say it because we come out of a revolutionary situation. One has a revolution, but one does not always have a revolution exactly the way one wants it to be.
There are forces on the other side that will also determine what actions or choices are possible for us. We have realised that we cannot get everything we want. We have to make painful choices, but our choices must be on behalf of the majority of this country, and also at the same time make good business sense.
For those that have supported the Bill, particularly Suzanne Vos, I would like to say that she might come out of her nightmare, it might not be such a ``Bill from hell’’ after all. [Laughter.] I think when we have finished, she might go and have a very peaceful sleep, realising that she has contributed a great deal to making sure that what this Bill is doing is indeed the best for South Africa. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Bloem, I would appreciate it if you could go back to your seat. [Laughter.] [Applause.] Order! Order, hon members! Order!
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Party, New National Party and Federal Alliance dissenting).
LAND AFFAIRS GENERAL AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Chairperson, the Land Affairs General Amendment Bill before the House was drafted to effect certain technical amendments to the Land Reform Labour Tenants Act and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, commonly known as ESTA. These amendments emanate from certain experiences of the Department of Land Affairs, and various stakeholders in implementing of this legislation, and aims to make it more efficient.
Clauses 1 through to 5, the first five clauses of this Bill, are rather technical amendments to the Labour Tenants Act, with the major idea to make the finalisation of projects more efficient and to bring it up to date. They also bring the provisions of the Labour Tenants Act in line with ESTA, the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, and in this way the idea is to treat all farm dwellers equally, whether they are labour tenants or occupants.
Specifically, the amendments provide associates of labour tenants with the opportunity to obtain certain grants from the Department of Land Affairs to secure their tenure on the land that they live on and where they work. This was especially necessary because the problem which we had was that beneficiaries often received grants under different pieces of legislations, which made it rather tedious for Department of Land Affairs officials and quite frustrating for the beneficiaries. We want to rectify that.
The court will also have to be satisfied that labour tenants who are evicted in terms of a temporary order of eviction because of urgency, will be ensured that adequate arrangements have been made. There are also amendments which give additional protection from eviction to labour tenants who have reached the age of 60, and which give certain equal protection to labour tenants and occupiers.
The main issue, in this Bill I think, is the question of burials on farms. This is an extremely sensitive issue, which I think should be treated with great sensitivity. In clause 6 of the Bill a definition of the so-called established practice is given, and then clause 7 gives a limited right to occupiers to bury their deceased on the land they were occupying at the time of the death. It works in this way, that the right is granted where there is a so-called established practice. That will be the case where there are existing graves, and occupiers will have the right to continue to bury their family members who were residing on the land at the time of their death. On the other hand, family members of long-term occupiers, as defined in section 8(4) of the present Act, will have the right to bury the deceased on the land regardless of whether there was an established practice.
Let me give members some information on the background to these provisions. One will have to go back to section 6(4) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, which grants any person the right to visit and maintain his or her family graves on the land which belongs to another person, subject to certain reasonable conditions. Then a person who qualifies as an occupier under section 1(1) of the ESTA legislation is in addition granted the right to reside on and use the land on which he or she resided before 4 February
- The Act states: ``to have access to such services as have been agreed with the owner or a person in charge’’.
Occupiers under ESTA are also specifically granted the right - this is very important in respect of these amendments we are effecting - to freedom of religion, belief and opinion and of expression, which they have under the Constitution in any event, and the right to family life in accordance with the culture of that family. It is actually an extraordinary provision in our legislation, respecting the culture of the people of our country.
The Extension of Security Tenure Act provides that both of these rights must be balanced, in their enforcement, with the rights of the landowner. We had a few cases on this matter. There was the case of Serole and another v Pienaar in which the Land Claims Court said that to establish a grave is not the kind of right which was intended to be granted to the occupiers in terms of the tenure Act. The court said that it was, however, possible to bury family members on a farm if it could be one of the services agreed upon with the owner.
After that we had the case of Buurmann v Nkosi and another, at the Pretoria High Court, which said that the Extension Security of Tenure Act does not include the right to bury the dead on the land, nor does it entail the rights to family life, freedom of religion and belief, or give occupiers the right to bury their deceased family members on the land. At best, the Pretoria court said that one would have a right where an occupier was able to prove an established practice in which the permission was routinely granted to bury deceased families on the land.
There was a very important dissenting opinion from the Judge President, Bernard Ngoepe. He argued a few very important matters. He said that, firstly, the right to freedom of religion and belief includes the right to manifest such a religion through conduct, quite in accordance with a long line of the type of court cases also in the Americas, and that would include the right to bury the family members close to existing graves.
He also said that the right to freedom of religion and belief outweighed the owner’s rights in that instance. He said that the declaration of a small piece of land as a grave was insignificant compared to the hardship caused to the family. He said that fears that an avalanche of burials might follow were not well founded and that section 6(2) of the Constitution did not limit the right of freedom of religion and belief.
The Buurmann decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the Transvaal Provincial Court’s decision with a majority verdict. [Interjections.] Yes, indeed, unanimously.
Judge Howie said that a grave effects a permanent diminution of the right of ownership of the land. He said that it would amount to an appropriation which is a classical absolute position on ownership as an absolute right. That is what was behind this. He also said that it was undeniable that funeral and gravesite rights were very much part of religious beliefs, but it could be said that those religious and cultural beliefs would be denied if the burial was not permitted. In other words, the court denied that right.
In actual fact, what the Court of Appeal said was that the legislature did not give sufficient intention that the right to burials was intended in the legislation. He said that the legislature stopped short of obliging owners and that it would not have been a real drafting problem to say so expressly. That is what we are correcting here today.
Let me just say that the outcome of these cases is unfortunate. Because, before the Extension of Security Tenure Act was enacted, before the change of Government in 1994, permission to bury farmworkers on the land on which they were residing was, in most cases, granted.
Ons het nie vandag daardie voorreg om dit te doen nie. Die ander deel van Mattheüs moet ook gelees word, waar Christus gesê het dat hy honger en dors was, asook, ``vir soverre julle dit aan een van die geringstes gedoen het, het julle dit ook aan My gedoen’’. Dink mooi hieroor. Bring die morele plig terug en moenie dat hierdie wetgewing ons verplig nie. Ons het altyd om daardie rede mense op die plase begrawe. Dit was die waaragtige rede.
Kom ons keer terug na daardie motivering en begin nie net uit aversie teen hierdie swart Regering ‘n veldtog voer nie. Laat ons nie eiendomsreg so verabsoluteer nie. Dit is ook nie die tradisie van die boere nie. Dit is nie die tradisie van die boere nie. Kom ons keer terug na ‘n morele basis hiervoor. Ek kon ongelukkig nie my toespraak klaarmaak nie. Ek sal weer opvolg in die repliek, maar kom ons keer daarheen terug. Laat dit om daardie rede wees, omdat ons dit doen aan een van die geringstes. Ons sal daarom ‘n graf op ons plaas beskikbaar stel en dan kan die wetgewing se morele begronding ook ingesien word. Ek staan daarby. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Today we do not have the privilege of doing that. The other part of Matthew should also be read, where Jesus said that he was hungry and thirsty, and said: ``In so far as you have done this to one of the least, you have also done this to me.’’ Just think about that. Bring back the moral duty and do not allow this legislation to force us. We have always buried people on the farms for that reason. That was the true reason.
Let us return to that motivation and not start a campaign out of aversion against this black Government. Let us not make property rights so absolute. That is also not in the tradition of the farmers. That is not the farmers’ tradition. Let us return to a moral basis in this respect. Unfortunately, I could not complete my speech. I will follow up on this in my reply, but let us return to this. Let it be for that reason, because we are doing it to one of the least. That is why we will provide a grave on our farm and then the moral grounding of the legislation can also be realised. This is my final word on the matter. [Applause.]]
Ms O R KASIENYANE: Chairperson, the piece of legislation that is before us is an attempt to consolidate the restoration of the human dignity of and respect for those who died and who were buried along the side of the road.
The Land Affairs General Amendment Bill was drafted to effect certain technical amendments to the Land Reform Labour Tenants Act and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, or ESTA. The amendments, as the Deputy Minister has already indicated, emanate from the experience of the Department of Land Affairs and various stakeholders who are responsible for the implementation of this legislation.
The land has always been close to the hearts of our people. The policy of the ANC is in line with this Bill:
The land shall be shared among those who work it. We are here to transform society. The Africans have always maintained their right to the country and the land as a traditional birthright of which they have been robbed. As legislators we need to be very vigilant in ensuring that laws that we make are implemented. We need to ensure that this is done, so that the people that this Bill is intended to assist will truly believe that we are committed to transforming and bettering their lives. It is imperative for the Government to ensure that their different agencies know and understand the law so that it can be implemented properly.
My focus in this Bill is on burial rights and visits to graves. The rights to bury in accordance with the wishes of the deceased are important. Lefoko la moswi le agelwa mosako. [We respect the wishes of the dead.]
We have to respect a person while he is still alive and when he is dead. We have a belief that if a person’s wishes are not accomplished, she or he will not rest in peace. That is why we always say: Rest in peace. How can a person rest in peace when there are problems even before he could be buried? The costs that our people incur when preparing for funerals are very high. It is a process. It is our culture to go through so many things before burying a person. There is a process, of course, that one has to follow when arranging for the funeral. One has to consult one’s church, as Christians, to make arrangements, also for a night vigil.
How and when can one do all these things while one still has to go to court for one’s rights? Although there is an Act, some farmers ignore all that. The denial of access to graves is equal to the denial of respect.
We want to visit our graves unconditionally. Usually relatives and family members who were absent from the funeral will have to visit the grave and leave a little stone or some flowers to show their respect. It is not only for the sake of remembering where the grave is, but also to speak and pray. Some of us pray and ask for good luck, for ``tata ma chance, tata ma millions’’.
People visit graves to ask many things, and to clean up the graves. It is our culture. It is a continuous exercise. By so doing, we keep all future generations informed. They should not to be in the dark about their ancestors.
The community of Leliespan outside Coligny in the North West province, if I may give an example, experienced the following problem. They were refused to bury the late Mr Albert Serole, who was a farmworker. Apparently he was very ill for quite a while. His body laid in a mortuary for four weeks before it was buried. He was buried along the side of the road next to the farm where he worked for so many years.
Go ya ka setso sa rona le magosi a rona, lerapo la motho ga le a tshwanela go bonwa le gogwagogwa ke dint šwa mo mebileng. Baswi ba rona ba tshwanetse go newa tlotlo e e ba tshwanetseng. Re ka se letlelele ope go ikgatholosa melao ya Puso ya rona.
Puso e e eteletsweng pele ke ANC e dirile go ka tlala seatla go tlisa mananeo a a tlaa tlhabololang matshelo a batho botlhe. Ka jalo, ga re kitla re tlogela fela gore go senyege re ntse re lebile. Re ile go bua e bile ga re kitla re lapa go dira jalo, ka gonne mosekaphofu ya gaabo ga a tshabe go swa lentswe. Rotlhe re a lekana fa pele ga molao, e bile re tlaa itumelela tekatekanyo eo ya ditshwanelo tsa botho. (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)
According to our tradition and chiefs, a human being’s bones should not be seen dragged about by dogs in the streets. Our deceased should be given the respect that they deserve. We will not allow anybody to ignore the laws of our Government.
This ANC-led Government has done more than enough to bring programmes that will improve the lives of all the people. As such, we are not going to sit back and let things fall apart whilst we watch. We are going to talk about these things, and we will not get tired of doing so because we will be fighting for what is justifiably ours. We are all equal before the law. All of us will be glad for that equality in terms of human rights.] Our challenge is therefore a speedy resolution to any dispute about access to, and the right to be buried on, the land where one works. Farmers must respect this piece of legislation unconditionally, without resorting to the courts of law.
Farmers must respect the cultures and traditions of other sectors of the South African population. Regulations of implementation may include special courts to settle disputes speedily. A true partnership needs to be established between farmers and farmworkers. Agri villages can be built around farms. This should not be seen by farmers as defiance. Maybe it can solve this crisis. It is important to consolidate the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
In conclusion, the courts will be satisfied that labour tenants who are evicted in terms of a temporary order granted because of urgency, will be assured that adequate arrangements have been made. All South Africans, including those who have died on farms, have a right to rest in peace in their graves with the respect due to them. [Applause.]
Mr D K MALULEKE: Chairperson, Deputy Minister and hon members, the Land Affairs General Amendment Bill contains amendments to the Land Reform Labour Tenants Act, Act 3 of 1996, and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Act 62 of 1997. Due to the nature of the proposed amendments, these are embodied in one Bill. The DP will support this Bill, as the amendments are of a technical nature and seek uniformity in the provisions of the abovementioned Acts, aligned requirements and dual eviction procedures.
In supporting this Bill, the DP also hopes that we will enable the Department of Land Affairs to speed up their progress on issues of restitution, redistribution and tenure reform. South Africa’s track record in this regard leaves much space for improvement. Dispossession and forced removal of African people under colonialism and apartheid resulted not only in the physical separation of people along racial lines, but also in extreme land shortages and insecurity of tenure for many of the black population.
With the transition to democracy, expectations were high that an ANC-led Government would effect a fundamental transformation of property rights that would address and lay the foundation for social and economic upliftment of the rural and urban poor. Such hopes were fuelled by the 1994 Reconstruction and Development Programme, which included a commitment to redistributing 30% of agricultural land within five years and making land reform the central and driving force of a programme of rural development.
However, seven years into the transition, these issues are still largely unresolved. Over 30 million people, the majority of them poverty-stricken people, remain crowded in rural areas where rights to land are often unclear or contested and the system of land administration is in disarray.
On private farms, millions of farmworkers, former workers and their families face continued tenure insecurity and lack of basic facilities despite the passing of new laws designed to protect them. In the cities, sprawling shack settlements continue to expand, beset by poverty, crime and lack of basic services. A deepening social and economic crisis in the rural areas, fuelled by falling formal sector employment, the ravages of HIV/Aids, the collapse of agricultural support services in the former homelands, accelerates the movement of people from the deep rural areas to towns and cities throughout the country, whilst thousands of retrenched urban workers make the journey the other way. This results in a highly diversed pattern for land and for a variety of purposes, and numerous hotspots of acute land hunger in both urban and rural areas.
Land reform in South Africa has been pursued under three broad headings. These are restitution, redistribution and tenure reform. The aims and objectives, as set out in the Constitution of South Africa, the 1997 White Paper on South African Land Policy and a succession of legislation are ambitious and potentially far-reaching. It also includes redressing the racial imbalance in land holdings, developing the agricultural sector and improving the livelihood of the past. However, in line with its neo-liberal microeconomic policy, the approach taken by the ANC-led Government has been based on respect for private property, reliance on market mechanisms, tightly controlled public spending and minimal intervention in the economy, which we see as unlikely to bring about transformation on the scale required.
Since 1994, whatever standard applies, the land reform programme has clearly not succeeded in achieving its objectives. Critical areas remain unaddressed. The Department of Land Affairs has routinely failed to spend its budget. Less than one quarter of 1% of the national total resulted in reduced funding being made available by the Treasury for 2001-2. This has generally been attributed to a severe lack of capacity, particularly in terms of quantity and quality of staffing in the national and provincial offices of the department and the Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights.
The laxity of the Department of Land Affairs and the virtual silence of senior political figures on the land question up to very recently suggests that land reforms have not been a political priority up to now. Poorly articulated demands among the poor and landless and limited capacity among NGOs in the land sector can also be cited as factors contributing to the lack of progress.
All rural areas in the Republic of South Africa fall within the jurisdiction of some district or local council which should assume the responsibility of establishing cemeteries. It is thus clear from the aforementioned that much still needs to be done on the issues of restitution, redistribution and tenure reform in a way that will support reconciliation, reconstruction and development.
It is therefore with high hopes that we look forward to seeing the Department of Land Affairs speed up its progress on these issues while simultaneously addressing poverty in South Africa. [Applause.]
Mr G B BHENGU: Chairperson and hon members, we have met to discuss an important milestone in the history of the labour tenants. They are the people who have experienced severe human abuse in all respects that one can contemplate. The sale of their labour has never been a premium on the part of their employer, and they have had no choice in determining how they should be treated or perceived.
This Bill is introducing a provision that extends the definition of the applicant for the acquisition of land and servitudes. This new definition will precisely remove the onus from the owner of the land to accept or reject the successor to a late labour tenant, by introducing a new concept of an associate, as this prerogative has been used to deny the next of kin any right to application for tenancy.
The reduction of the age limit of 65 years of age to 60 years is another important milestone since people’s body mechanisms differ and more so because of strenuous conditions under which they work. Toil and becoming worn out can definitely engulf them even before they turn 60. Working should, of necessity, be a matter of choice rather than an obligation for occupying or being allocated land when one has satisfied the requirements of tenancy through his or her labour as calculated in the working years.
On the issue of evictions, it gives most of us due delight that no person shall remove or evict a labour tenant or an associate except on the authority of an order of a competent court. On this score, we believe that there will be no evictions until proceedings of the final order by the court have taken place. I believe that this court will, in all likelihood, also consider the interests of the tenant facing an eviction.
We welcome the hedging of the advances or subsidies, which the Minister may determine and/or grant to the applicants who face eviction and thereby need alternative land. This means that applications for such advances and subsidies will cover all applicants prior to 31 March 2001, as there is little chance that after this date there would have been grievous evictions necessitating such applications.
The IFP supports the Bill in its attempt to address the issue of the burial of labour tenants. Land, to African communities, is not only an abode but also a sacrosanct aspect of our religion. Land, family and burial are inalienable entities in the African culture. We appreciate the fact that this Bill will really illustrate that we not only envy, but that we have reached an era of African Renaissance.
The IFP supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr S ABRAM: Mr Chairperson, I rise to support this Bill. The Bill gives
legal effect to the constitutional provisions of freedom of religion and
worship, and goes a long way towards redressing the imbalances which became
more apparent and led to a court action, to which the Deputy Minister
referred. In this country we will have to learn to get away from an us
and them'' approach and develop awe’’ feeling. In this context, I want
to appeal to farmers that farmworkers should be seen as their extended
family.
The departmental officials who implement the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and work with it have indicated that it is becoming more difficult for farmworkers to bury their dead, even in long-established gravesites on farms. Many occupants on farms are forced to endure not only the hardships caused by the death of a family member, but the additional burden of being forced to find a burial site that is far away from where they are living, and that is expensive and contrary to their religious and cultural beliefs.
Some farm owners may genuinely be worried that granting permission to bury on their land will give the family some longer-term right to claim the land in the future. However, organised agriculture has often allayed the fears of these owners, and so they permit burials on their land. Others, who are familiar with the court cases which have been referred to by the hon the Minister, see the denial of burials as an opportunity to further degrade and humiliate farmworkers, and exert their power and control over their lives during difficult times.
There is a very interesting amendment that was brought in here, to the effect that any person whose rights or interests have been prejudiced by a contravention of one of the sections of the law shall have the right to institute a private prosecution on the alleged offender. In such a case, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 shall apply to a private prosecution in terms of this Act, provided that the person prosecuting privately does so through a person entitled to practise as an advocate or an attorney in the Republic, or the person prosecuting privately has given written notice to the prosecutor who has jurisdiction over the area, that he or she intends to do so. [Time expired.]
Mr Z KOTWAL: Mr Chairperson, death and burial are part of the day-to-day existence in normal society. People make arrangements for their deaths well in advance, preparing burial attire, expensive coffins and caskets. However, where is the sense in all this if one does not have a piece of ground to be buried in?
On the farms here in South Africa, people who had no security of tenure are now protected by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and the Labour Tenants Act. They now have security of tenure. Landowners can no longer evict people at every whim and fancy. Our people have the right to live on the land. But, unfortunately, at the moment they do not have the right to be buried on the land on which they were born and died. With the passing of the Land Affairs General Amendment Bill today our people will now be able to rest in peace and buried in the traditions and culture of their forefathers.
Ukufika kwami lapha ePhalamende kwathi lapho ngithola ithuba lokukhuluma, ngabeka udaba lwami mayelana nokuphila kwabantu ezindaweni zasemakhaya. Ngaleso sikhathi emuva kokhetho olukhulu luka-1994, lolu lukaMkhulu uMandela, abantu emakhaya babeshaywa, bethathelwa imfuyo yabo bese kuthi ekugcineni baxoshwe emapulazini. Abanikazi bamapulazi babethi bona banamalungelo okuba nomhlaba. Igatsha likaKhongolose eNtswephe lalihamba libutha ogogo bethu emgwaqeni. Njengamagatsha kaKhongolose sathinta amalungu asePhalamende la eKapa ngayo le nkinga.
UKhongolose waqhamuka nemiThetho evikela abantu bethu. Ngale miThetho eyashaywa ngaleso sikhathi sasithi sizophinde sihlalisane kahle nabanikazi bamapulazi njengoba vele sasikade sihlezi kahle nabo. Kodwa abanikazi bamapulazi babengenelwe ukwesaba bethi sizobathathela amapulazi abo. Abazi ukuthi njengabalandeli bakaKhongolose thina siyayihlonipha imiThetho.
Abanikazi bamapulazi bona abasihloniphi. Noma sesishonile abasihloniphi, kanti nemithetho futhi abayihloniphi. Ngisho ngoba ngaphambi kokushaywa kwalemiThetho esengikhulume ngayo, imithetho ibithule ngodaba lokungcwatshwa kwabantu. Kodwa abangani baka-Douglas Gibson bayenza kwaba sengathi ithi kufanele basivimbe uma sifuna ukungcwaba abantu bethu. Yingakho sabona ukuthi kufanele kube nomumye umthetho ovikela amalungelo okungcwaba abantu abashonele epulazini. Lawa malungelo kuthiwa ngama-burial rights.
Kula malanga abantu basemakhaya bahlupheka kakhulu uma beshonelwe. Le miThetho-ke izosiza. Sesizoba namalungelao okungcwaba. Nokho-ke le miThetho ayikaqini kahle. Singajabula uma umNyango wezemiHlaba ungayihlanganisa lemiThetho: owokuvikela abantu ababesebenza epulazini bengaholi behola ngokuhlala khona, bebizwa ngama-labour tenants, kanye ne-Security of Tenure Act ukuze kube nomthetho owodwa oqinile ovikela abantu abahlali nabasebenzi emapulazini. Kunzima ukuhlala endaweni yomunye umuntu. Mayibuye!
Ngaphambili besitholela abantu umhlaba bese sibashiya kanjalo ukuthi bazibonele ukuthi benzenjani. Lokhu bekuyiphutha. Manje, njengoHulumeni kaKhongolose sesinohlelo lokuthi kwenziwa njani emuva kokutholakala komhlaba. Lolu hlelo lubizwa nge-Land Redistribution Agricultural Development Programme. Kufanele isize ekutheni abantu bethu bazithuthukise, balime ngezindlela zonke ukuze baphile, babe ngabalimi abazozimele, ekuhambeni kwesikhathi bakhule babe ngabalimi abahwebayo.
Ngithanda ukubonga uNgqongqoshe usisi Thoko Didiza, ongekho lapha, ngokuthi bebambisene noNgqongqoshe uLekota, bakwazile ukuthi bakhiphe abantu baseMabola emathendeni lapho babelahlwe khona. Ngomhla ka-9 Agasti udadewethu uThoko wabanikeza umhlaba. Halala ngoHulumeni we-ANC, halala!
AMALUNGU: Halala! (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)
[When I spoke here in the Parliament of South Africa for the first time, I presented my case concerning the way people live in the rural areas.
Before the 1994 elections of grandfather Nelson Mandela, rural people were beaten and their livestock taken from them and they were eventually evicted from farms. Farm owners used to say that they had a right to land ownership. The ANC branch in Ntswephe went around collecting grannies from the streets. As branches of the ANC, we contacted members of Parliament here in Cape Town about that problem.
The ANC produced legislation that protects our people. With regard to this legislation we thought we would meet again with farm owners as we had been living with them peacefully. They should not have been afraid or thought that we would deprive them of their farms. They did not know that as members of the ANC we respected the law.
Farm owners do not respect us. Even when we are dead, they do not respect us. They do not respect the law either. Even before the abovementioned legislation was passed, it did not say anything about the burial of people on farms. The friends of Mr Douglas Gibson made it look as if it said we should be prevented from burying our people on farms. That is why we decided to pass another a law, which protects the right to bury people who died on farms. These rights are called burial rights.
These days rural people suffer a lot when they lose a loved one. This legislation is going to be helpful. We will have burial rights. However, these laws are not so strong. We would be happy if the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs could combine these laws: This law will protect farm dwellers who receive no payment and are paid by being allowed to stay on farms. These people are called labour tenants. The Security of Tenure Act should be strong so that there will be one strong law that protects people who stay and work on farms. It is very difficult to reside on someone else’s land. Africa must come back!
In the past we used to get people land and then leave them. This was a mistake. Now we as the ANC Government have a plan as to what needs to be done after the land has been made available to people. This programme is called the Land Redistribution/Agricultural Development Programme. It should help people to improve themselves so that they can plough, using all the methods, and become independent farmers. As time goes by, they could become commercial farmers.
I would like to thank hon Minister Thoko Didiza, who is not here, for removing the people of Mabola from where they were dumped. She did this together with Minister Lekota. On 9 August my sister Thoko Didiza gave these people land. To the ANC Government we say: Congratulations!
HON MEMBERS: Congratulations!]
Mnr Z KOTWAL: Grondregte was deur die eeue nog altyd hoogs emosioneel en het dikwels tot konflik gelei. In Suid-Afrika is dit ook nie anders nie, daarom wil ek Agri SA bedank vir hulle positiewe benadering en begrip wanneer gepoog word om die onregte van die verlede reg te stel. Graag betuig ek ook namens die ANC waardering teenoor die baie boere wat gesteld is op die welsyn van hulle werkers en respek toon vir hul gebruike, waarvan die begrawe van hul geliefdes maar een is. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr Z KOTWAL: Throughout the ages, land rights have always been highly emotional and often led to conflict. South Africa is no different, that is why I want to thank Agri SA for their positive approach and understanding when there are attempts to rectify the wrongs of the past. On behalf of the ANC I would like to extend my gratitude to the many farmers who are concerned about the welfare of their workers and show respect for their customs, of which the burial of their loved ones is but one. [Applause.]]
Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairman, the ACDP will vote in favour of the Land Affairs General Amendment Bill because it is right that people should have security of tenure, and it is right to protect people from being evicted. It is also right to ensure that pensioners are not left homeless and that people have the right to bury their dead.
However, there is a cost involved in all of these things. If this cost is borne by the farmer alone, it will ultimately impact negatively on food prices. For this reason, there may well be room for the state to contribute toward the burden of the landowner, either by direct grant or reasonable tax concession, whereby the owner can write off the direct cost of housing people. This would be a positive incentive, which would lessen the present likelihood of unintended consequences such as farmers choosing not to accommodate people on their farms and people approaching retirement age not being able to find work.
It is also true that farming is a business like every other business. Why should farmers be forced to provide their workers with what no other business is expected to provide? When these rights are claimed, the burden should be spread fairly, for example where a retiree occupies a dwelling, a replacement employee would need a new house. Would the Minister entertain a grant to the owner to encourage the building of new homes in these instances? The ACDP believes that tax concessions will be a correct response by Government. Nevertheless, the ACDP supports the Bill.
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Voorsitter, ek wil dadelik begin om vir die agb Adjunkminister te sê dat alle mense natuurlik respek het vir die dood. Die dood is ook ‘n hoogs emosionele saak. Ek wil vir die agb Adjunkminister sê: Hy kom hierso en hy sê dat hy nie eintlik die boere verstaan nie, want die boere het altyd ‘n goeie gesindheid gehad. Dit is reg.
Die werklikheid is die boere het bedreig begin voel oor sekere wette wat die agb Minister se party op die Wetboek kom plaas het, waardeur hul eiendomsreg bedreig word, deur te sê dat daar sekere aansprake gevestig word op grond deur voorvaders en ander vaders en verdere vaders.
Die werklikheid is dit is hierdie agb Adjunkminister se medepolitici wat hierdie saak verpolitiseer het. Kom ek gee u ‘n voorbeeld: In Noordwes gaan die premier, mnr Popo Molefe, nadat ‘n boer wettiglik volgens die hoogste hof in die land toestemming geweier het en reg opgetree het, waar hulle ‘n persoon gaan begrawe het in ‘n padreserwe, en hy gaan lê kranse daar en hy maak die boere af asof hulle ‘n klomp rassiste is. Daardeur, sê ek nou vandag vir die agb Adjunkminister, bevorder hy rassehaat. Dit word voorgehou asof die boere onbillik is, onregverdig is en net eenvoudig probeer dwars wees en teen die huidige Regering is.
As die agb Adjunkminister wil kom praat oor die goedgesindheid van boere, moet hy die korrekte feite op die tafel sit. Ek wil ook verder sê dat die VF die hoofwette wat hierby ter sprake is nie gesteun het nie, vanweë verskeie beginsels, en daarom sal die VF ook nie hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp steun nie. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Chairperson, I want to start immediately by telling the hon Deputy Minister that of course every person has respect for death. The issue of death is also a highly emotional matter. I want to say to the hon Deputy Minister: He comes here and says that he does not actually understand the farmers, because the farmers always had a good attitude. That is correct.
The reality is that farmers have begun to feel threatened by certain laws which the hon Minister’s party has placed on the Statute Book, whereby their right of tenure is threatened, by saying that certain claims are being established on land by forefathers and other fathers and further fathers.
The reality is that it is this hon Deputy Minister’s fellow politicians who are politicising this matter. Allow me to give the House an example: In the North West the premier, Mr Popo Molefe, went to where they had buried a person in a road reserve after a farmer legally refused permission and acted rightfully, according to the highest court of the land, and he laid wreaths there and he made the farmers out to be a bunch of racists. By doing so, I am now telling the hon Deputy Minister today, he is promoting racial hatred. The farmers are being presented as being unfair, unreasonable and simply trying to be difficult and against the present Government.
If the hon Deputy Minister wants to come and talk about the good will of the farmers he should place the right facts on the table. I also want to state that the FF did not support the principal Acts at issue here, as a result of various principles, and for that reason the FF will not support this amending Bill either.]
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, Act 3 of 1996, and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 1997, are both progressive pieces of legislation. These respective Acts seek to empower and protect labour tenants and their associates by conferring on them rights and obligations to purchase the land which they occupy and use and, above all, to protect them from arbitrary evictions. We all know what necessitated the introduction of the Land Affairs General Amendment Act.
It is common knowledge that despite the existence of these two Acts, farmworkers and their associates continue to be subjected to harsh treatment and real threats of eviction. Had it not been for the intervention of civil society, organisations active in the farming sector, farmworkers and their loved ones who are unable to render their services to their former employers would be on the street or their suffering left unattended.
There are even really sad stories of families living on farms being denied an opportunity to bury their loved ones on the farm. It is our view that this proposed amendment will restore dignity to those affected and strengthen the respective Acts - giving them teeth - by addressing identified loopholes.
The UCDP supports the Bill with all its amendments, and views its objectives as a positive step in the right direction to ensure that the most productive, yet poor segment of our society, in the form of current and former farmworkers, are indeed protected, and that they experience a sense of security and ownership of the land they have known all their lives, not only as a place of work, but as their home. We, therefore, unconditionally support the Bill in its current form. [Time expired.]
Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, the PAC supports this Bill, believing that land belongs to all Africans, and that no African must feel like a stranger in Africa. We respect the power given to the courts to adjudicate on the eviction of people dwelling on land. Our one qualification is that the problem of landlessness should not be overlooked. Many indigenous people simply do not have land. They do not have money to buy land and, even if they had money, most of the land has already been bought. Courts exercising jurisdiction on evictions should do so with compassion.
The Group Areas Act collapsed when the famous Goldstone decision was made. Judge Goldstone asked a simple question: ``If this family has to be moved, is there a place where they have to be moved to?’’ This classic case established moral justice in interpreting legal justice. It is worth noting that even the apartheid policy was very legal, but it was not morally correct. Those who were oppressed defied the legality of it, and the whole world came to declare apartheid a crime against humanity. Legality and morality are two sides of the same coin.
That does not mean that the rule of law is subject to individual interpretation and exploitation by opportunists. There must be the rule of law, but equally there must be justice, fairness and moral justification. The rate of evictions and the hopelessness of the conditions of the poor people calls perhaps for the declaration of a moratorium on evictions until the ground rules of land redistribution are revisited.
Lately many people have been refused the right to bury their dead with dignity. The African world-view regards funerals as the ultimate expression of one’s humanity, Ubuntu, and the place where one’s final resting place is, is hallowed ground. One cannot be appreciated as a source of labour, but be rejected when one is dead. The PAC supports this Bill. [Time expired.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson, the need to alter certain provisions of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act and the Extension of Security of Tenure Act is supported. These Acts perform an important role in respect of the existing rights of labour tenants and farm dwellers and are also regulating the terms under which these rights may be terminated.
In viewing the amending Bill, the provisions made to alter the Acts appear to be in order. It is, however, noted that the two Acts which this Bill amends are so similar that the question as to why it was not rather formulated in the Act should be posed. If one focuses attention on clause 5, which provides that the Minister may extend the advance and subsidies for the acquisition of land to labour tenants even after they have been legally evicted, and that he may do so only if the application for the subsidy and or advance was made before 31 March 2001, this causes one to wonder how the department intends tracing those labour tenants who had been evicted during the apartheid time in order to process their applications for subsidies and advances.
However, the intentions of this clause are positive and perhaps an announcement in the Gazette would cater for the tracing of these farmworkers. The MF applauds the department on this amending Bill which certainly appears to be intent on achieving positive results. The MF supports the Land Affairs General Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Mnr die Voorsitter, die Adjunkminister het daarna verwys dat daar geskryf staan van die graf van Josef van Arimathéa. Daar staan ook geskryf: ``Die voëls van die hemel het neste; die jakkalse het gate, maar die Seun van die mens het nie ‘n plek waar Hy Sy hoof kan neerlê nie.’’
Eers wil ek net ‘n baie belangrike tegniese punt noem. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [Mr C AUCAMP: Mr Chairman, the Deputy Minister referred to the fact that mention was made of the grave of Joseph of Arimathea. It is also written: ``Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay His head.’’
At the outset I want to mention a very important technical point.]
The technical point is that the long title of the Bill reads as follows:
… to reduce the age at which a labour tenant … may be evicted …
The original Act states, and I quote:
… a labour tenant who has attained the age of 65 years shall not be evicted …
It should be changed to the age at which he may not be evicted. I think we must ask the NCOP to look at that point.
Die eerste deel gaan oor tegniese punte wat die twee wette met mekaar versoen. Ons wil noem dat die AEB ernstige probleme het met die oorspronklike wet. Ons weet dat daar sekere regte van eienaarskap is wat in die gedrang kom, en daarom het ons ook probleme hiermee. Agri SA het ‘n paar probleme genoem wat nie aangespreek is nie.
Formulerings soos may not obstruct or interfere'' is baie moeilik, veral
in die lig van veiligheidsituasie. Dis baie vaag. Net so is routinely
gave permission’’ in die gedeelte oor begrafnisse net so moeilik om te
vertolk.
Wat die begrafnisse betref, toon die AEB groot begrip en respek vir die reg tot die onbelemmerde uitoefening van godsdienstige gebruike, maar kan ons nie altyd hierdie reg absoluut handhaaf nie. Verabsolutering van wat subjektief as godsdienstige regte beskou word, kan inderdaad, as die volle konsekwensies daarvan deurgetrek word, lei tot die sanksionering van praktyke soos die daggarook van Rastafariërs, genitale mutilasie en onmenslike inisiasiepraktyke. Ek wil vir die ANC vra: Waarom is die sogenaamde godsdienstige regte hier van sulke groot belang, maar in die onderwys word die reg van die ouer om sy kind in dié leer te laat onderrig, misken, ten gunste van ‘n breë algemene allemansgodsdiens? Gaan dit werklik hier oor godsdiensregte of gaan dit oor grondregte? Ons glo dat hier nie genoeg beskerming is vir die eienaar en dat daar geen ruimte gemaak is vir kostevoorsiening nie.
Ons wil daarom sê dat ons nie hierdie wetswysiging sal kan steun nie, net soos ons ook besware gehad het teen die oorspronklike wet. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The first part deals with technical points reconciling the two Acts. We want to mention that the AEB has serious problems with regard to the original Act. We know that certain rights of ownership are being jeopardised and therefore we also have problems with that. Agri SA mentioned a few problems which were not addressed.
Phrases such as may not obstruct or interfere'' are very problematic,
especially in the light of the security situation. They are very vague. It
is equally difficult to interpret the phraseroutinely gave permission’’
in the definition pertaining to funerals.
As far as funerals are concerned, the AEB has the greatest understanding and respect for the right to exercise religious customs without restriction, but we cannot always exercise this right absolutely. Absolutely what we subjectively regard as religious rights may indeed, if the consequences thereof are taken to their logical conclusion, lead to the sanctioning of practises such as the smoking of dagga by Rastafarians, genital mutilation and inhumane initiation practices.
I want to ask the ANC: Why are the so-called religious rights of such importance here, while in education the right of the parent to have his child taught according to this doctrine is being denied in favour of a broad general religion? Is this really about religious rights, or is it about land rights? We believe that there is not enough protection here for the owner and no provision as regards costs either.
For this reason we want to say that we will not be able to support this statutory amendment, for the same reasons that we could not support the original Act.]
Mr A J BOTHA: Mr Chairperson, it is not often that the DP has good reason to agree with the Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs. But today he mentioned a few things here about which I must certainly agree with him. In the first instance, he said that the focus of this amendment to the Act is burials, and I fully agree with him there.
I think it is necessary for us to realise that the families and friends of every one of us sitting in this House here today, will one day be faced with the need to dispose of our mortal remains at the end of our lives. It is necessary, for our peace of mind, to be certain that the trauma and disruption caused by death will not be exacerbated by the additional crisis regarding the availability of either a burial plot or some other acceptable method of disposal. In an urbanised society most people would be accommodated in plots specifically set aside by municipalities for this purpose.
In landelike gebiede en op plase is dit egter nog die algemene gewoonte om mense binne bereikbare afstand van die woonplek af te begrawe. Miskien moet ek ter illustrasie my eie ondervinding, wat ek glo vry algemeen die norm verteenwoordig, met agb lede deel.
Ek is ‘n boer en die afstammeling van 11 geslagte boere sedert 1685. My eie familie, asook die familie van al die werknemers op die plaas wat die plaas met my deel, behou nog grootliks die gewoonte om mense op die plaas te begrawe.
In die etlike dekades wat ek in beheer van ons familieplaas is, was dit nog nooit nodig om spesiale reëlings vir begrafnisse te tref nie. Dit word as vanselfsprekend aanvaar en dit is nou nog so. Hier stem ek en die Adjunkminister weer met mekaar saam.
Op verskeie plekke het die wetgewing, soos by ESTA, soos die Adjunkminister uitgewys het, egter met onbedoelde nadraai die situasie aansienlik verander. Onsekerheid en kommer oor die gevolge van grafte op plase het selfs gelei tot die weiering van plaasbegrafnisse.
Die onlangse appèlhofbeslissing het bepaal dat daar nie so ‘n inherente reg bestaan nie en daarom debatteer ons vandag dié wysiging. Al die partye in die portefeuljekomitee het ingestem tot die wysiging wat daarna streef om meer sekerheid oor gevestigde gebruike te verskaf.
Sommige van die partye wat vandag teen die wysigingswetsontwerp stem, was nooit by een van dié portefeuljevergaderings nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Dit is van die uiterste belang om daarop te let dat die regsgeding veroorsaak is deur ‘n uitsonderlike … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[In rural areas and on farms it is, however, still common practice to bury people within accessible distance from the home. Perhaps I should share my own experience, by way of illustration, with hon members, which I believe commonly represents the norm.
I am a farmer and the descendant of 11 generations of farmers since 1685. My own family, as well as the family of all the employees on the farm who share the farm with me, still to a large extent retain the practice of burying people on the farm.
In the many decades I have been in control of our family farm it has never been necessary to make special arrangements for funerals. It is accepted as a matter of course and it is still like this. Here I once again agree with the Deputy Minister.
At various places the legislation has, however, as at ESTA, as the Deputy Minister pointed out, with unintentional after effects, changed the situation considerably. Uncertainty and concern about the consequences of graves on farms has even led to the refusal of farm funerals.
The recent Appeal Court ruling determined that no such inherent right exists and for that reason we are debating this amendment today. All the parties in the portfolio committee agreed to the amendment which strives to provide more certainty on established practices.
Some of the parties who are voting against the amending Bill today, did not even attend one of the portfolio meetings. [Interjections.] It is of the utmost importance to note that this court case was caused by an exceptional …]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Hon member, are you rising on a point of order?
Dr P W A MULDER: Voorsitter, is die agb lid bereid om ‘n baie eenvoudige vraag te beantwoord?
Mnr A J BOTHA: Nee, ek is nie, baie dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [Dr P W A MULDER: Chairperson, is the hon member prepared to answer a very simple question?
Mr A J BOTHA: No, I am not, thank you very much.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! No, he is not.
Mnr A J BOTHA: Dit is van die uiterste belang om daarop te let dat die regsgeding veroorsaak is deur ‘n uitsondering op die reël en nie die reël nie.
Dit is nie die boodskap wat na buite uitgedra word nie. Ek is bevrees dat die agb Kasienyane, maar veral die agb Kotwal, hulself weer vandag hieraan skuldig gemaak het. Soos dikwels vantevore is die beeld na buite een van rassistiese boere wat andere se regte misken.
Só erg het dit onlangs op die SABC gegaan dat Agri-SA, die sambreelorganisasie van kommersiële boere, ‘n amptelike klag hieroor ingedien het. Agb lede moet ter wille van perspektief daarop let dat president Mbeki dié organisasie gereeld aanprys vir sy positiewe en ewewigtige benadering. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr A J BOTHA: It is of the utmost importance to note that this court case was caused by an exception to the rule and not the rule.
That is not the message being conveyed outside. I am afraid that the hon Kasienyane, but especially the hon Kotwal, have once again made themselves guilty of this today. As has happened, many times before, the image conveyed is that of racist farmers who disregard the rights of others.
It went so badly recently on the SABC that Agri SA, the umbrella organisation of commercial farmers, submitted an official complaint on this. For the sake of perspective hon members should note that President Mbeki regularly praises this organisation for its positive and well- balanced approach.]
Yesterday the President, in reply to a question, appealed for enhancement of common loyalty to South Africa by, amongst others, respecting the cultures, beliefs and basic rights of others. I appeal, in like manner, to all of us here today, in judging our fellow South Africans in the farming community, to do the same. The hon Kotwal should consider the effect on human lives of ill-considered generalisations. Consider the economic and social impact of ill-considered generalisations is what I would like to say to the hon Kasienyane. When these hon members have considered these, then they should consider assisting an already traumatised sector of our society, rather than impeding progress with total negativity. [Applause.]
Mr M A MAPHALALA: Chairperson and hon members, we are debating today a very important piece of legislation that concerns the lives of our people in this country. This legislation is not more important than any other legislation, but very important. It is important in that we are debating about a section in our society that, in the history of this country, was neglected - this is the section of the population in our society that lives on the farms, on land that is owned by other people. It pains one to sit here and listen to people who make a joke out of this issue that we are discussing today, as if they are living on a planet somewhere outside this country. We have experienced people running up and down along the road, trying to find a place where they can bury their dead. For the first time, today, we are debating a Bill that grants the right to such people to bury their dead with dignity in a place they would be able to visit in the future.
Yesterday, before coming to this debate, there was a question on whether this Bill would allow people to visit the graves of their relatives who had been buried on a certain farm. The answer is: Yes, people will be able to do so for the first time. Our Comrade President once said that this Government was about the people, and that it was for the people, and this demonstrates precisely that.
The hon Groenewald seems to be worried about farmers that fear that if such rights are granted, they will lose their property rights. I do not think that is correct. I do not think that is true. I think his party is probably representing those few farmers that are arrogant and inhumane, those that treat our people as animals. [Interjections.]
There is an organisation that represents farmers: Agri SA. This organisation supports this Bill, and this organisation represents the majority of farmers. That majority of farmers are saying: Yes, those workers must be granted the right. I do not know which farmers he represents then. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Secondly, Mr Groenewald does not even know on which day the Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs sits.
Mr P J GROENEWALD: You are quite right!
Mr M A MAPHALALA: He does not attend those meetings, so he does not even know the Bill that we are talking about. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order! Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, on a point of order: This is the second speaker who is misleading Parliament by making those pronouncements. Are the members not aware of the fact that the smaller opposition parties are not allowed to be members of all committees? Because they do not know that, they make these pronouncements and they are misleading the public and Parliament. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! It is strictly speaking not a point of order, but I think it is valid nonetheless for small parties to make their viewpoint known so that it is not miscommunicated to the nation at large.
Mr M A MAPHALALA: Chairperson, if I had time I would have addressed this issue, that if parties are not able to attend, they must not make pronouncements on issues that they are not familiar with and that they do not understand. [Applause.]
I have experience of this problem that we are discussing today, and I want to thank the ANC Government that they have considered that if we say all people must be treated equally, that is what we must do in this Parliament. We must really make those people who are suffering out there feel that they enjoy their part of this South Africa, that they enjoy these freedoms that we are talking about today, otherwise we cannot talk of freedoms. [Applause.]
Citizens of all countries talk about freedom when they have the freedom to have a right to the piece of land they reside on. We talk of freedom when people are able to bury their dead, we talk of freedom when people who are living on the land are able to farm that particular land.
This legislation, in my view, is not just a technical amendment. It is an amendment which brings about fundamental rights for our people. Our people will be able to visit those lands, and will be able to live on them. If a person is evicted from the land, for the first time the court will be able to order reinstatement of that person back on land if the eviction was not correct. It is fundamental, is not just a technical amendment. [Interjections.]
Ms N M TSHEOLE: Chairperson, on a point of order: I would like to ask if it is parliamentary for the hon members to chew and eat peanuts in the Chamber? [Interjections.] I see their jaws moving up and down like goats. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members you may bring neither drinks nor food into the House. Proceed, hon member.
Mr M A MAPHALALA: Chairperson, unfortunately the hon Aucamp says he does not understand why the ANC treasure so much the cultural and religious rights of people to bury their dead. I do not know where he comes from. I respected him and thought that he knew the cultures of people. He should know that we bury people according to our cultures, and the ANC respects that. The ANC respects those rights of people to bury their dead the way they believe in and, therefore, the ANC believes that they have the right to visit those graves and to keep them in good order.
Unfortunately my friend Maluleke, Ndabezitha, I cannot understand what happened. I thought we are moving together, we attended the meetings of the portfolio committee and we understood. I do not know whether hon Maluleke went to the dictionary and the Internet and borrowed words that he does not understand.
Mr D A A OLIFANT: Somebody else wrote his speech.
Mr M A MAPHALALA: Chairperson, it is one issue that gives me a problem with what hon Maluleke was saying. The rest was very good. He personally understands the plight that our people are going through. But, he is saying the ANC has a neoliberal programme. I do not know that if we are saying we are granting our people from the farms the right to bury, to residence and to visit their dead if he identifies that as neoliberal, then I do not know if he knows what is neoliberal.
Mr D A A OLIFANT: Somebody else wrote his speech.
Mr M A MAPHALALA: Chairperson, I do not know, because he knows very well that this department is working on the consolidation of two Acts, ESTA and the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, to grant permanent rights. We know that this piece of legislation is a stopgap Bill, to make sure that there are no people who are lying on the street dead, that people are buried, and he is saying that it is neoliberal. I do not know whether he knows what neoliberal is. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Chairperson, let me just thank Mr Maphalala for his very wise address here. Indeed, it is only the first five clauses of the Bill that are really technical. Substance lies in the rest.
What this Bill addresses is actually a coming together of a lot of distress factors in South African society. I think that has been illustrated by members in their speeches and we thank them for it. It is on the balancing line between a lot of stress points in South Africa. One can see the whole of South African history in this burial problem which we have. One can see it is grounded in the landlessness, as the members have exhibited, that is the root of the problem of people being driven off the land systematically over more than 350 years. That is at the heart of the problem. So, if we really want to get it right we must get that right. That is why we are working with legislation at the moment, but to achieve land reform, to have the land situation addressed, that is what in the end we will be working on.
The second factor is that one sees people who are socioeconomically in an extremely poor position. The rural workers in South Africa are amongst the poorest of this country. They are poorer and less educated than the people in the traditional areas, in the old tribal areas. They are far less well off than them.
One actually sees the result of a working proletariat that has been systematically created over 350 years. [Interjections.] That is why the people have a problem with their burials. It is because they are sitting in a position that has been structurally created. We are sitting with a historical and systematical result. [Interjections.]
Today we have seen the attitude, which was so tragically demonstrated by Mr Groenewald, of the landlord - the lord of all he surveys. [Interjections.] This domination is oriented to landownership. [Interjections.] That is what he demonstrated and I will talk more about that. [Interjections.]
Today, we are seeing here a degrading of other religions and cultures that lies at the heart of the burial problem which we have in South Africa. We have seen what I believe to be the core of the problem. People can say what they want, but it is the problem of nonrespect for people of other races. [Interjections.] Somehow they think their land will be soiled if someone from another race is buried on that land. That is at the heart of the problem and I maintain it. [Interjections.] We are not talking about these hon members, but we are talking about the people.
What I heard when the hon member Groenewald was talking was that he used words I have heard before when he said:
Hierdie mense wat hulle vaders en voorvaders en agtervaders wil kom
begrawe.'' [Tussenwerpsels.] Dit is dieselfde klank wat ek hoor by mense
wat sê:O, dis alweer die swartmense wat begrafnisse wil hou en uit die
werk uit wil wegbly.’’ Dit is ‘n rassistiese houding daardie, wat uitgewis
moet word in hierdie land. Die mense wat kla oor wat Popo Molefe gedoen
het, sal hulle napraat. Hulle is presies nou waar hulle was. (Translation
of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[These people who want to come and bury their fathers and forefathers and
`afterfathers'''. [Interjections.] This is the same tone I hear from people
saying:Oh, it is once again the black people who want to have funerals
and stay away from work.’’ This is a racist attitude that must be
eradicated in this country. Those people who complain about what Popo
Molefe has done will echo this. They are now exactly where they were.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Yes, hon member, are you rising on a point of order?
Dr C P MULDER: Mr Chairperson, I am rising on a point of order, so that the Deputy Minister can get calm and collected. The hon the Deputy Minister clearly referred to the hon member Mr Groenewald now when he made the statement that he made and he inferred that it was racist. Now, I want to know if it is in order that the Deputy Minister implies that the statements that were made by the hon member are racist or not, and the implications that he is a racist, because he denies that very strongly. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, are you rising on the same point of order?
Ms N E HANGANA: Mr Chairperson, yes, I am rising on the same point of order. I do not think that the hon the Deputy Minister mentioned a name. I do not think it is so. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Dr Mulder, to the best of my knowledge, I think the Deputy Minister has been talking in general terms. [Interjections.] [Applause.] He has not specifically alluded to the fact that what the particular member said was racist. But in the broader context of the debate, I think, he is well within his rights to be able to make critical comments in that regard. [Interjections.] If you are not happy with that, then I will pursue the matter further and study the Hansard. [Interjections.]
Dr C P MULDER: Mr Chairperson, I want to address you on your ruling. I request you to have a look at the Hansard, because, as far as I am concerned, the Minister referred to the hon member and said that those were racist points of view. I would ask you to look at the Hansard and make a ruling at a better time. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, and I will look at that.
Die ADJUNKMINISTER: Wat my hinder en waarom dit sulke skandalige optrede was, is dat dit kom van mense wat kulturele regte probeer dryf as die basis vir hul politiek. Hulle ontsê mense hul eie kulturele regte en het nie waardering vir die diepte van gevoel wat daar rondom begrafnisse in ons kulture in Suid-Afrika bestaan nie. Ek dink dit is skandalig. Wat word gedoen? Daar word staat gemaak op die formele regsposisie.
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Voorsitter, ek kan my stem verhef, so die Huis kan maar raas. Ek wil vir die agb Adjunkminister vra of hy bereid is om ‘n vraag te beantwoord. [Tussenwerpsels.] Die mense raas so dat ek nie kan hoor wat die agb Adjunkminister sê nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The DEPUTY MINISTER: What does concern me, and why this was such scandalous behaviour, is that it comes from people who are attempting to drive cultural rights as the basis of their politics. They deny people their own cultural rights and they do not have any appreciation for the depth of emotions that exist in relation to burials in our culture in South Africa. I think this is scandalous. What is being done? People are relying on the formal legal position.
Mr P J GROENEWALD: Chairperson, I can raise my voice, so the House can continue making a noise. I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he is prepared to take a question. [Interjections.] The people are making such a noise that I cannot hear what the hon the Deputy Minister is saying.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER: No, I am not willing to take a question.
Van sulke mense neem ek nie vrae nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Nou word daar staat gemaak op die formele regsposisie waarom mense in die padreserwe begrawe moes word. Nou is die formele regsposisie verander vir daardie soort van mense. Ons praat nie van mense van wie ons met waardering kennis neem nie. Dit is die oorgrote meerderheid van boere in hierdie land, wat nie die houding het wat mnr Botha vandag hier geopenbaar het nie.
Ons het vandag absolute morele bankrotskap gesien van ‘n party wat geen steun meer het in hierdie land nie, en wat vernietig sal word. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[I do not take questions from such people. [Interjections.] Now people are relying on the formal legal position as to why people must be buried in road reserves. Now the formal legal position has been changed for those kinds of people. We are not talking about people of whom we take note with appreciation. That is the overwhelming majority of farmers in this country who do not have the attitude that Mr Botha demonstrated here today.
Today we saw the absolute moral bankruptcy of a party that no longer has any support in this country, and that will be destroyed. [Applause.]]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Freedom Front and Afrikaner Eenheidsbeweging dissenting).
VETERINARY AND PARA-VETERINARY PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Chairperson, now you see the animal-loving soft guy here again before you. [Interjections.] This very interesting Bill, I must say, unfortunately took a very long time to get here. I am sure the hon Mr Hanekom is very glad to see it here today after a long consultative process.
This Bill makes provision for the establishment of the SA Veterinary Council. The objectives of this council are to regulate the practising of veterinary and para-veterinary professions and to advise the Minister on matters affecting these professions. What it does, is to propose amendments to the present constitutional structure of the veterinary council to ensure, firstly, that this important council is representative of the demographics of the country.
There is a public duty on the Minister to inform the parliamentary committees in writing about the designation or election of the members concerned, so that the information is passed on and so that the committees can exercise their duties of keeping the Ministry and the executive accountable. The veterinarians who now want to practise in private companies, as is the practice in some other professions, will be provided for in this Bill. The reason why this relook at the Act came about is because the council was no longer in conformity with present-day provisions and requirements.
Secondly, we had a constitutional problem in that the Act was not in line with the principles of the new Constitution. A working group was established and a long process followed. Workshops were conducted, stakeholders were consulted and written submissions were received. As long ago as June 1995, a workshop on the restructuring of the council was held. Concerns were raised and the restructuring of the present council started. It was then requested that the Act be amended. Today we have the result of that process.
In terms of the amendments made to section 6 of the present Act, a person will not qualify to be a member of this council if he is found guilty of unprofessional, improper or disgraceful conduct - all the usual provisions that we have for this type of professional council.
What is interesting is that the original Act stipulated that a member of the council should be proficient in both the former official languages, that is, in both English and Afrikaans. That is unconstitutional. By the way, I wonder how many Acts in South Africa are unconstitutional on this ground, requiring, for some purpose, that one must be proficient in both those official languages, meaning English and Afrikaans. We should have a general amending Bill which will amend all these Acts in one go.
The history of this provision in the Bill is interesting. The executive included the provision that such a person should be proficient in at least two of the official languages, of which English should be one. That was rejected.
It is a very interesting point and I think the committee was right to reject it. The Bill cannot require such a person to be proficient in at least two of the official languages, stipulating that English should be one, because that is discrimination.
The best qualified person should be appointed as a member of this council. If such a person speaks only Afrikaans and Zulu, he should be appointed, and not because he might also speak English. I think this is completely correct. We should make other plans. If one member of the council speaks Afrikaans and Zulu and the other people speak English, an interpreter should be provided. That is the only way to get equality of languages in this country and we should stand firm on that. This matter has now created a precedent which I hope is correct. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
I want to thank the committee for their excellent work in this regard as well as in general.
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Sihlalo, uqinisile uNgqongqoshe. [Chairperson, the hon the Minister is right.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Thank you, Nkosi.
The amendment of section 20 deals with the qualifications for registration. The possibilities for registration are broadened for specialist veterinary professions. The council may require the candidate to write an examination on top of a degree or diploma.
The amendment to section 24 requires the registration of private companies, that is veterinarians who practise as private companies.
The disciplinary powers of the council are clearly described. Previously fines for misconduct were very low. We amended the Bill in terms of the Adjustment of Fines Act, 1991. Henceforth fines will be determined according to the provisions of that Act and will be adjusted automatically.
It is important to note that section 29 of the Pharmacy Act, 1974, is also amended. Gaps occurred in existing legislation and veterinarians were not allowed to sell medicine like doctors, pharmacists, dentists or other practitioners. This Bill also amends the Pharmacy Act. Veterinarians can now supply medicine to their clients. They have been brought to the same level as other medical practitioners and dentists. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr B A RADEBE: Chairperson and hon members, once again we meet during the month of red October to advance the transformation agenda of the ANC-led Government. All professions in this country were organised along racial lines and according to apartheid policies. That is why the legacy of apartheid is still with us today.
According to the latest statistics, there are about 2 227 veterinary surgeons in the country and only 98 of them are of African origin. Out of this total, only 23 are in the employment of the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs, the very department which is charged with ensuring animal health in the country. It is the duty of the Ministry and the council to ensure that this anomaly of apartheid is addressed. With these amendments, we as the ANC believe that the council is in a better position to transform the profession by ensuring that it is represented according to the demographics of our country. This action must also attain gender equity, which is guaranteed by our Constitution.
The Freedom Charter made a clarion call that the doors of learning and culture shall be opened to all South Africans. According to statistics, in 1994, 136 first-year students enrolled for veterinary science. The number steadily declined to 79 in 2001. This is cause for concern. One of the objects of the council is to determine the minimum standard of tuition and training required for degrees, diplomas and certificates entitling the holders to be registered to practise the veterinary and para-veterinary professions.
The members of the council who represent universities must clearly come forward and explain why we have this situation. If we do not invest in our youth through training and education, the future of our country is doomed. Since universities are sites where professionals are prepared, it is important that universities should provide incentives to draw students from previously disadvantaged communities to study veterinary science. This must take the form of study tours to the faculties of veterinary science and the provision of scholarships to students who have potential. This will go a long way towards realising the objectives of the RDP. The ANC made a call that we must speed up change and provide a better life for all. One way of providing a better life for all is to give people freedom to practise their professions under conditions of stability and certainty. We appreciate that this amendment recognises the specialised fields within the para-veterinary profession. This will lead to an increase in the number of paravets in the council from one to three. This will enable them to express their opinions and lobby their needs in the council. This will help stem the tide of professionals leaving our country.
In this profession we must appreciate that there are lots of patriots. It is one of the professions where there is a smaller number of people emigrating to other countries. An example is that in 1994, only eight veterinarians emigrated, in 1996 only four emigrated and in 1998 no veterinarians emigrated. This confirms what President Mbeki said in this House, that as a nation, we are on course.
The way the veterinarians handled the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak was a shining example of a nation at work. Within a period of five months, the disease was eliminated from the province of KwaZulu-Natal, whilst veterinarians from different parts of the country converged to fight the disease. The knowledge gained from this experience of fighting foot-and- mouth disease must be shared with the people of Zimbabwe, where the disease has struck again. This will go a long way towards fostering neighbourliness in the context of the African Renaissance.
Mr G B BHENGU: Chairperson and hon members, the amending Bill before us today addresses a number of issues that have affected the veterinary and para-veterinary professions.
Unfortunately, the way in which such issues have affected these professions
happens to simultaneously affect human beings. Professions are about human
beings. No animal can practise a profession, and therefore it cannot be a
professional.
The constitution of the SA Veterinary Council will change face, since
university representatives will now be from'' rather than of’’
universities. These representatives will, by that very fact, act in the
interests of the profession over and above that of a university.
We are happy that the recognition of only two official languages, namely Afrikaans and English, has been done away with. That very clause has alienated the majority of our people and prevented them from accessing strategic positions in the job market. On the issue of the racial divide, one can also point out that all institutions offering courses in veterinary and para-veterinary professions will, as a result of this amendment, be on a par with each other, irrespective of the majority of students registered for these courses.
It gives us great pleasure to learn that a representative council will, in the near future, undertake the registration of the qualified veterinarians. This council will set standardised examinations that will entrench similar standards countrywide. We believe that the facilities and other resources will not disadvantage students from previously disadvantaged institutions, because that loophole will bring another institutionalisation of racial discrimination.
The requirement that the Minister will have to inform the parliamentary committee in writing about the election or designation of the council within 30 days of election or designation renders the constitution of the council a transparent process. We hope that the Minister’s obligation to consult with the outgoing board regarding the selection panel will not jeopardise, but inform the constitution process.
We are concerned about the salary structure of the veterinary profession, as it is not on a par with that of the medical profession. The dissimilarity of patients treated by these professions should not necessarily be used to discriminate against dispensers of certain services, for example veterinary and para-veterinary services. Let us strive to enhance the dignity of these professionals who render a very essential service. Veterinarians and para-veterinarians take care of our livestock and pets as if they were looking after human beings.
One of the main factors that attract people to a particular profession is the pay structure. Why should this kind of science be looked down upon when it comes to financial incentives, especially when we have an urge to arm our human resources potential with skills in the science, technology and commercial fields? Let us correct this imbalance for the sake of this necessary profession.
The IFP supports the amending Bill.
Mnr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mnr die Voorsitter, agb Adjunkminister en kollegas, ek dink ek en die vorige spreker sal ‘n goeie span kan vorm, want ons koester dieselfde gedagtes oor hierdie professie.
Die doel van die wetsontwerp is om die samestelling van die veeartsenykundige raad duidelik uit te spel, met die nodige ingeboude maatreëls om vertragings in die aanstelling van die raad in die toekoms te voorkom. Dit is van die uiterste belang dat geen vertragings voorkom nie, aangesien dit die werksaamhede van die raad en die bedryf saboteer en nadelige gevolge vir die veebedryf van die land inhou.
Die vertragings in die aanstelling van die lede van die raad is in die verlede hoofsaaklik toegeskryf aan die Departement van Landbou se agterlosigheid om nie betyds en vroegtydig hulle reg om te nomineer uit te oefen nie. Vertragings van hierdie aard kan ernstige gevolge vir ons land inhou, soos byvoorbeeld dat veeartse van ander lande met onvoldoende kwalifikasies hier kan praktiseer. Hierdie ongewenste praktyk kan ongestoord voortgaan, tot nadeel van die land, indien ons raad nie funksioneer nie. Hierdie veeartse mag wel deeglik opgelei wees, maar die opleiding is dalk nie geskik vir omstandighede in Suid-Afrika met unieke tropiese siektes nie. Daarom moet hierdie veeartse getoets word en in sekere gebiede van veeartsenykunde heropgelei word. Daarom mag daar dus geen vertragings met die aanstel van die raad wees nie.
Hierdie stuk wetgewing is die resultaat van kompromieë tussen die departement, veeartse en ‘n groot verskeidenheid tersake instansies. Hierdie wetsontwerp skryf presies voor hoe die lys van persone … [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, hon Deputy Minister and colleagues, I think the previous speaker and I would make a good team, because we have the same ideas about this profession.
The objective of the Bill is to expound the composition of the veterinary council clearly, with the necessary built-in measures to prevent delays in appointing the council in the future. It is of the utmost importance that there should be no delays, as this sabotages the activities of the council and has detrimental consequences for the livestock industry.
In the past delays in appointing the members of the council were primarily ascribed to the Department of Agriculture’s failure to exercise their right to make nominations on time and timeously. Delays of this nature could have serious consequences for our country, for example that veterinarians from other countries who have inadequate qualifications could practise here. This undesirable practice could continue unchanged to the detriment of the country if our council is not functioning. These veterinarians may very well be thoroughly trained, but the training may perhaps not be suitable to the conditions in South Africa, which has unique tropical diseases. That is why these veterinarians should be tested and retrained in certain areas of veterinary science. There may therefore be no delays in the appointment of the council.
This piece of legislation is the result of compromises between the department, veterinary surgeons and a large variety of relevant institutions. This Bill prescribes exactly how the list of persons … [Interjections.]]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members who are occupying the far back benches, you are carrying on with your own parliaments. Please, do pay attention.
Mnr A S VAN DER MERWE: Hierdie wetsontwerp skryf presies voor hoe die lys van persone wat aan die Minister voorgelê moet word, opgestel moet word. Die portefeuljekomitee het, as gevolg van die vertraging met nominasies vir die raad en dus aanstellings wat daarop moet volg, aangedring op ‘n klousule wat die Minister verantwoordelik maak, sodat die Departement van Landbou tydig en skriftelik terugvoering sal gee aan die portefeuljekomitee oor bedankings en aanstellings binne 30 dae nadat dit gedoen is.
Die portefeuljekomitee was ook van mening dat ‘n wetsontwerp van redelik eenvoudige aard soos hierdie een te lank geneem het om af te handel as gevolg van swak kontinuïteit en voorleggingsessies deur die staat se regsadviseurs. Ek versoek dat hierdie probleem in die toekoms uitgeskakel moet word. Die komitee was ook van mening dat daar ‘n groot behoefte bestaan om die industrie te transformeer deur ‘n groter verskeidenheid mense na die veeartsenykundige veld te trek. Hoewel die wetsontwerp ‘n basis daarstel, sal alles niks help indien die agb Minister nie daadwerklik aan ‘n hele paar knelpunte aandag skenk nie.
Die eerste hiervan is finansiering. Finansiering van veeartsenykundige dienste is glad nie voldoende nie. Ek wil nie graag my betoog laat berus op verwyte nie. Vir ‘n hele paar jaar pleit die opposisie vir genoegsame fondse vir byvoorbeeld die Landbounavorsingsraad. Jaar na jaar is die pleidooie afgewys. Ons voorganger het met trots en met reg na die transformasieproses verwys. Dit kan nie die plek inneem van genoegsame fondse nie.
Nou het die Ouditeur-generaal in sy ouditeursverslag gewaarsku dat die Landbounavorsingsraad se werksaamhede besig is om in duie te stort, as gevolg van ‘n gebrek aan fondse. Ek versoek dringend dat die veeartsenykundige dienste en navorsing asseblief nie as gevolg van ‘n gebrek aan fondse dieselfde pad as die Landbounavorsingsraad loop nie. ‘n Land wat sy navorsing laat agterraak, sal ook nie ekonomies lewensvatbaar kan voortbestaan nie.
Ek vra myself af hoekom 25% van veeartsposte in die land nie gevul is nie. Is dit omdat salarisse nie voldoende is nie? Is dit omdat poste oopgehou word vir transformasie? Indien ek reg is dat die poste oopgehou word vir transformasie, moet die agb Minister haarself afvra wat die probleem is.
Ek is van mening dat nuwe opkomende veeartse die beroep sien as ‘n beroep wat nie die nodige status het nie. Indien my aanvoeling reg is, is ‘n dringende veldtog nodig om hierdie verkeerde persepsie die nek in te slaan. Is daar waarheid in die gerug dat daar werklose swart veeartse is wat nie aanstelling by die departement kry nie, terwyl 25% van die poste nie gevul is nie?
Hierdie wetsontwerp, as basis, sal sy waarde totaal verloor indien ons nie dringend aandag gee aan die volgende nie: Ons moet onthou veeartse het dit vir Suid-Afrikaanse boere moontlik gemaak om suksesvol met vee in Suid- Afrika te kan boer. Hulle het dit moontlik gemaak dat boere die aanslae van veesiektes doeltreffend die hoof kan bied.
Ek boer al 35 jaar lank met melkbeeste. In die begin het ons nie veeartse gehad nie. So hier en daar moes ‘n mens ‘n veearts inroep, maar die tegnologie het so verander dat jy deesdae nie sonder ‘n veearts jou melkery kan voortsit nie. Indien die Regering daarin kan slaag om beginnerboere suksesvol te kan vestig, sal die behoefte aan veeartse geweldig toeneem. Hierdie mense moet met gevestigde boere meeding. Hulle het dus hulp van veeartse baie nodiger. Daar moet dus nou aanmoediging plaasvind om meer mense na die beroep van veearts te trek.
Indien ons ernstig is aangaande nuwe boere in die bedryf sal ons veeartsenykundige dienste in die landbou drasties moet opknap. Hierdie dienste in die landbou het baie agteruitgegaan. Laat ons dit asseblief regstel. Landbou in Suid-Afrika is baie dankbaar dat bek-en-klouseer doeltreffend bekamp is. Dit is egter kommerwekkend dat jongmense nie getrek en behou word nie, en dat in navorsing en patologiese dienste net ou gesigte gesien word.
Patoloë moet sorg dat bek-en-klouseer en ander siektes vinnig gediagnoseer word. Ons moet seker maak wat die toedrag van sake by ons is. Ons moet jongmense trek, maar die beeld wat die Regering skep met die afskaal van dienste en beurse by navorsing in veeartsenykunde is dat dit nie belangrik geag word nie. Indien my bekommernis gegrond is, sal doeltreffende dienste vorentoe al minder word, en minder doeltreffend wees.
Die grensdraad by Messina wat ons help om bek-en-klouseer te beheer, moet herstel word.
‘n AGB LID: Dit is herstel.
Mnr A S VAN DER MERWE: Dit is nog nie herstel nie, dit terwyl bek-en- klouseer-uitbrekings in Zimbabwe al langs die pad na Beitbrug loop. Kan ons gerus slaap en toelaat dat ons veeartsenykundige dienste verder agteruitgaan? Dit help mos nie die wette is in plek, maar die dienslewering verswak algaande nie. Met die DA se besoek aan Onderstepoort was dit verblydend om te sien dat die opleiding nog steeds van die beste is, en dat daar by die fakulteit nie ‘n verlaging van standaarde is nie.
Ek wil die agb Minister vra om die rol uit te spel wat veeartse by mense se gesondheid moet speel, byvoorbeeld by slagplase en hawens en veeartsenyinspeksies soos verpligte dip. Dit wil vir my lyk of daar gekyk moet word na die plek van para-veeartsenykundige dienste, wat hulle plek is, en of dit nie die druk op veeartse kan verlig nie. Dit mag net nie die standaard van dienste verlaag nie. Die portefeuljekomitee het juis hieroor gevra vir verteenwoordiging van elk van hierdie para-veeartsenyprofessies op die raad.
Die DA sal hierdie wetgewing steun. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: This Bill prescribes exactly how the list of persons submitted to the Minister should be compiled. The portfolio committee, owing to the delay in making nominations for the council and the resultant appointments, insisted on a clause rendering the Minister responsible, so that the Department of Agriculture would give timeous and written feedback to the portfolio committee concerning resignations and appointments within 30 days of these taking place.
The portfolio committee was also of the view that a reasonably simple Bill such as this one took too long to finalise because of poor continuity and submission sessions by the state’s law advisers. I want to request that this problem should be eliminated in the future.
The committee was also of the view that there is a great need to transform the industry by drawing a larger variety of people to the veterinary profession. Although the Bill provides a basis it will come to nothing if the hon the Minister does not actively devote attention to quite a few points of concern.
The first of these is funding. Funding of veterinary services is not in the least adequate. I would not like to base my contribution on reproaches. For quite a few years the opposition has been appealing for adequate funds for the Agricultural Research Council, for example. Year after year the appeals have been declined. Our predecessor proudly and rightly so made reference to the process of transformation. This cannot take the place of adequate funds.
Now the Auditor-General has warned in his auditor’s report that the activities of the Agricultural Research Council are collapsing owing to a lack of funds. I urgently request that veterinary services and research should please not go the way of the Agricultural Research Council owing to a lack of funds. A country that allows its research to lag behind will not be able to continue to exist viably.
I am asking myself why 25% of veterinary posts in the country are not filled. Is it because the salaries are insufficient? Is it because posts are being kept vacant for transformation? If I am correct in that posts are being kept vacant for transformation, the hon the Minister should ask herself what the problem is.
I am of the view that new emerging veterinarians see the profession as one that does not have the necessary status. If I am correct, an urgent campaign is required to put an end to this incorrect perception. Is there any truth in the rumour that there are unemployed black veterinarians who are not being appointed by the department, while 25% of the posts are not filled?
This Bill will lose its value as a basis completely if we do not urgently devote attention to the following: We must remember that veterinarians have made it possible for South African farmers to farm successfully with livestock in South Africa. They have made it possible for farmers effectively to overcome the onslaught of livestock diseases.
I have been farming with dairy cattle for 35 years. In the beginning we did not have veterinarians. Here and there one had to call in a veterinarian, but technology has changed so much that these days one cannot have a dairy without a veterinarian. If the Government can succeed in establishing beginner farmers, the need for veterinarians increase tremendously. These people must compete with established farmers. They therefore have a far greater need for the assistance of veterinarians. There should now be encouragement to draw more people to the veterinary profession.
If we are serious about new farmers in the industry we will have to drastically improve veterinary services in agriculture. These services in agriculture have deteriorated drastically. Please let us rectify this. Agriculture in South Africa is very grateful that the foot-and-mouth disease has been combated effectively. It is disconcerting, however, that younger people are not drawn and retained, and that in research and pathology services only the old faces can be seen.
Pathologists have to ensure that foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases are diagnosed quickly. We must determine the state of affairs in this regard. We must draw young people, but the impression the Government, in scaling down services and bursaries in respect of research in veterinary science, is creating that it is is not considered important. If my concerns are founded, in future effective services will become increasingly scarce, and less effective.
The boundary fence at Messina, which helps us to control foot-and-mouth disease, must be repaired.
An HON MEMBER: It has been repaired.
Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: It has not yet been repaired, and that while there are outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Zimbabwe, all along the road to Beit Bridge. Can we sleep peacefully and allow our veterinary services to deteriorate further? Surely it does not help that there are laws, but service delivery is gradually growing worse. With the DA’s visit to Onderstepoort it was gratifying to see that the training is still of the best, and there has been no lowering of standards at the faculty. I want to ask the hon the Minister to expound the role that veterinarians have to play in the health of people, for example at abattoirs and ports and at veterinary inspections such as compulsory dipping. It seems to me as if the place of para-veterinary services should be looked at, what their place is and whether this could relieve the pressure on veterinarians. The only thing is that it may not lower the standard of services. In fact, in this regard the portfolio committee asked for the representation of each of these para-veterinary services in the council.
The DA will support this legislation. [Applause.]]
Mnr S ABRAM: Voorsitter, dit is ‘n voorreg om die agb lid Van der Merwe op te volg. Die agb lid het hier gepraat uit praktiese ervaring en ondervinding. Ek wil net graag beklemtoon dat ons basiese probleem is dat baie min van ons jongmense vandag bereid is om met oorpakke en veldskoene aan te gaan werk, en om hulle hande in te steek in die agterent van ‘n perd of ‘n koei. Hulle beywer hulself liewer vir werkgeleenthede waar ‘n mens met ‘n das of ‘n pak werk toe moet gaan. Ons sal daadwerklike stappe moet neem om die belangrikheid van veeartsenydienste by ons jongmense te laat posvat. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr S ABRAM: Chairperson, it is a privilege to speak after the hon member Van der Merwe. The hon member spoke from practical experience and knowledge. I would just like to stress that our basic problem is that too few of our youth today are prepared to go to work wearing overalls and veldskoens, and to stick their hands into the rear end of a horse or cow. They rather strive for job opportunities where they go to work wearing a tie or a suit. We will have to take decisive steps to let the importance of veterinary services take root with our youth.]
I want to say that, unfortunately, I am not going to speak about the Bill because whatever one wanted to say has already been said, as far as the Bill goes. But, the veterinary field as a whole is an extremely important one. As a country, we have identified agriculture as one of those avenues which must help with the upliftment of historically disadvantaged individuals. It is going to be extremely important that we see to it that the sector has the necessary support services.
As far as livestock is concerned, hon members are aware that we are making some headway and many countries are beginning to have some interest in our export of livestock products. But the countries that we are looking to, particularly those countries that get the jitters when there is the slightest outbreak of some or other disease such as BSE or mad cow disease in the United Kingdom, and the recent outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Europe, will naturally demand extremely high health standards in order to import our products. That is one of the routes that we will have to go, to promote the export of our products and, in that way, to help historically disadvantaged individuals and new emerging farmers on the road to success. That is largely dependent on the veterinary profession.
The veterinary profession must not just be seen as a profession where one has to put one’s hand into the back of a cow or a horse, but it has some other side issues which are extremely important, such as the *breeding of better genetics, where veterinarians are involved in issues such as embryo transplants and other things such as these. [Time expired.]
Mrs C DUDLEY: Chairman, whilst the ACDP is mindful that these provisions may well be essential at this point in our history … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Carry on, member.
Mrs C DUDLEY: … this legislation is discriminatory and as such should include a sunset clause, which can be reviewed after 10 years. Today’s so- called ``positive discrimination’’ is tomorrow’s unfair labour practice.
High standards in this sector are not only vital to the health of the public, but critical to the life of the agricultural industry, which must have the confidence of consumers both locally and abroad. It is imperative that new measures do not in any way lead to the deterioration of standards in the profession or compromise this major industry.
Political goals to ensure constitutionality and representivity, etc, must be met, but without economically damaging the country, for such good intentions will backfire on the very people they are meant to empower. The ACDP will vote in favour of this Bill, but believes that all South Africans should be living under the same rules, and calls on the Minister to introduce a sunset clause wherever positive discrimination has been legislated.
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, the UCDP welcomes the proposed and discussed Veterinary and Para-veterinary Professions Amendment Bill, which seeks to change, amongst other things, the composition of the council, as it has become apparent that the constitution no longer performs the daily requirements and that certain provisions of the Act are not in line with principles laid down by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
The revised model of the future constitution of the council does, to a certain extent, address the key issues that would make the new council nondiscriminatory, and representative and democratic in its composition, to be able to serve all South Africans indeed, and recognises the importance of the needs of consumers and clients from all sectors of the community. With the amendments effected to the above critical areas of the Act, I have no doubt in my mind that the council’s composition will no longer be unconstitutional, as it will be able to respond to the needs of the country. What is left is for the Bill to be voted upon so that able South Africans can be nominated to serve on the council as a matter of urgency. The UCDP supports the Bill. [Time expired.]
Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, the PAC supports this Bill which has undertaken to adjust obsolete clauses and amend the Act in accordance with the Constitution of our land.
Perhaps the most important consideration is concern for the citizens of our land who were previously disadvantaged. Veterinary professions should be open to all. I would like to add that the current view that some sections of our population do not treat animals well stems from inadequate training of members of these sections. Veterinary training and veterinary services should be encouraged among those who were previously disadvantaged.
Amendments effecting the reconstitution of the South African Veterinary Council are also welcomed. The new council will be respectable, have integrity and raise standards for all. The PAC supports this Bill.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the professions focused on in this Bill holds great, importance for both the rural and urban communities. These professions specialisation in animal care does not only maintain the health of pets, but also that of livestock, livestock that represents an income to many farmers and a source of food for nonvegetarians.
It is noted that the earlier Bill established … [Interjections.] Yes, until the hon member took it away from me. It is noted that the earlier Bill established a council to regulate veterinary and para-veterinary professions. Certain aspects of its constitution were found not to conform with the Constitution of the Republic. The amending Bill appears to correct that by restructuring the SA Veterinary Council so as to bring its constitution in line with the Constitution of the Republic.
The MF notes the necessity of complying with the national Constitution and therefore supports the amendments made. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! The hon Miss Rajbally completed her speech in 60 seconds despite the interruptions by the hon Mr Mike Ellis.
Mnr C AUCAMP: Voorsitter, die AEB steun die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Veeartseny- en Paraveeartsenykundige dienste. Dit lyk vir ons na ‘n goeie en gebalanseerde wetsontwerp. Die raad sal selfregulering toepas, maar met die nodige insette van die staat, en daarom kan ons daarmee saamgaan.
Ek stem met die Minister saam dat dit onkonstitusioneel is om ‘n taal of tale af te dwing op lede van die raad, maar is dit nie dalk net so onkonstitusioneel om studente wat op Onderstepoort as veeartse opgelei word as’t ware te forseer om in net een taal, naamlik Engels, onderrig te word nie? Ons is baie dankbaar dat studente darem wel in ander tale die eksamen mag skryf.
Alle veeartse word op Onderstepoort opgelei, en die staat het ook daarby belang. Ons kan hierdie kwessie daarom nie net aan die markkragte oorlaat met die ooreenkoms wat die Universiteit van Pretoria gehad het nie. Ons vra die Minister om toe te sien dat ons studente ook meer in lyn met die Grondwet meertalig hulle onderrig kan ontvang.
Ons steun hierdie wetsontwerp, en ons glo dat dit in belang is van ‘n baie belangrike bedryf in ons landbougemeenskap, en ook verder. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, the AEB supports the Veterinary and Para- veterinary Professions Amendment Bill. To us it seems like a good and well- balanced Bill. The council will apply self-regulation, but with the necessary inputs from the state, and that is why we are able to agree with it.
I agree with the Minister that it is unconstitutional to force a language or languages on members of the council, but is it not possibly just as unconstitutional to train students at Onderstepoort as veterinarians and actually force them to be trained in only one language, namely English? We are very grateful that students are at least allowed to write examinations in other languages.
All veterinarians are trained at Onderstepoort and the state has an interest in that as well. We cannot, therefore, leave this issue to be solved by the market forces with the agreement that the University of Pretoria had. We ask the Minister to see to it that our students receive their multilinguistic tuition in line with the Constitution.
We support this Bill and believe that it is in the interest of a very important industry in our farming community and even further.]
Dr E A SCHOEMAN: Mr Chairman, the Bill under discussion in its present form differs substantially from the original Bill as tabled. Although the portfolio committee under the chairmanship of Nkosi Holomisa must take credit for the final product, it is a pity that a relatively straightforward piece of legislation required so much panel beating. Although there is a reluctance to apportion blame, evading the issue could send the incorrect signal.
At the outset, the newly elected chairman of the Veterinary Council admitted that he had not been briefed about the Bill and was consequently ill-equipped to provide the necessary guidance and information to the portfolio committee. During the subsequent meetings, the former chairman, Dr Peter Addington, did his best, but had to admit that in some instances the legislation was illogical, had not been properly workshopped, and was generally shoddy. This is not the type of legislation one would expect from a professional society, which surely has access to some of best legal brain power.
A fair amount of this criticism must also be apportioned to the legal section within the Department of Agriculture. It would seem that the original author or authors of this piece of legislation vanished, and it was, accordingly, passed around. This was not the quality of legislation emanating from the Department of Agriculture to which the portfolio committee had become accustomed, and we trust that this will not signify a possible future trend. Although the temptation was to request that the Bill be withdrawn and rewritten, the committee applied its mind and the final product should be to the advantage of the veterinary and para-veterinary professions. All the parties present made significant contributions, which resulted in the final product, on which there was total consensus, as we heard today.
I am not going to repeat what has already been said. We are glad that the council is now smaller. The election process has been streamlined and this Bill also strengthens the portfolio committee’s oversight role in that the Minister must submit the names of the new council within a period of 30 days. We are also glad that veterinarians who were qualified in other countries can now be accommodated to practise in this country and that, if they want to specialise, there is an examination required if so judged by the council. This Bill also seeks to amend the Pharmacy Act of 1974, as has been said. Many veterinarians have been contravening the law and dispensing and keeping medicines. This oversight has now been rectified. This House expresses its appreciation to the veterinary profession for the task they are performing in aid of animal health in general. More specifically, there are many veterinarians and para-veterinarians in our rural areas, often far removed from the daily comforts of modern-day living. They are indispensible in the production and reproduction of our farm animals and game. Their role in keeping the shelves of our supermarkets full with what we eat and drink as well as our game parks well stocked is often not appreciated.
By paying a special tribute to them I do not want to minimise the contribution of those who are so dedicated to caring for the wellbeing of our pets, be it cats, dogs or budgies. I thank them very much. They all deserve to be recognised for their professionalism. The ANC supports this amending Bill. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Deputy Minister, in calling on you I trust that you have taken note that the hon the Minister of Home Affairs has been present for the entire debate to support the Bill.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Mr Chairperson, I actually wanted to mention that when I came on now. But I know the hon the Minister of Home Affairs as a man who loves cattle and I am going to mention it to the king the next time I see him, that where it concerns these matters, his prime minister was present.
Mr Chairman, let me quickly say that I completely agree with Dr Schoeman regarding the quality of this legislation. It has a very strange history of how it came here. Let us be thankful that we are here. But next time I am going to ask my Minister whether I cannot just personally rewrite the Bill. I am sure we can do a better job. But we will get it out.
Could I just thank two persons from the opposition today who were an example of what opposition really looks like. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, no business in the aisles.
The DEPUTY MINISTER: I would like to thank Mr A S van der Merwe and Mr Abram, who constantly in agriculture debates show what the opposition should really be like. I am going to ask for a Hansard copy of Mr Van der Merwe’s speech to study it in detail, because he addressed a lot of very important things.
Let me just say that at the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of the Orange Free State in Bloemfontein, there is a very beautiful building which I passed by for many years, on which something is written in Afrikaans as some kind of guidance for those who study agriculture. In English it would read as follows:
A nation that looks after its future looks after its agriculture.
But, it reads as follows:
‘n Volk wat vir sy toekoms sorg, sorg vir sy landbou.
I think we must think very seriously about that. If we look at our future we must care for our agriculture and the veterinary and para-veterinary sciences are primary in that respect.
Let me firstly tell Mr Van der Merwe that I recently had extensive discussions with the faculty at Onderstepoort, and on the previous Monday I had an interview with the dean of the faculty on bursaries, something which comes a long way. We have a real problem with far too few black veterinary students at Onderstepoort and the only way to get it right is by providing bursaries. It is very expensive and one needs something like R30 000 a year to study at Onderstepoort.
Do hon members know what is happening at Onderstepoort? The profession is becoming a woman’s profession. About 70% of the students at Onderstepoort are women. It is becoming a profession for women. However, there is a problem in that some very tough work has to be undertaken and, also, there is dangerous work in some remote areas. We need the men there as well. The problem is that we do not have black students. Previously, bursaries were provided in the provinces and in the old Bantustans, but that is not happening at the moment. I have given strict instructions that the bursary scheme be developed and that this transformation takes place at Onderstepoort. We must do it. [Applause.]
This whole Bill is about transformation and we are going to guide it and see whether it is going to work in practice. We must get representivity in terms of race and gender. It is very difficult in the veterinary field today, because if I as veterinarian want to do an operation on a cow, one needs the same kind of skills that one would need to operate on a human being in a hospital. The value of the cow determines the value of the operation. That makes it difficult to really compensate veterinarians to the full extent.
Hon members must please go and visit Onderstepoort. It is one of the great assets of this country. That animal hospital in Onderstepoort - if I get ill, I want to be treated there, rather than at any other hospital in South Africa. [Laughter.] It is a very beautiful place and a very good place. It is an asset. We must open it to all the people of South Africa. It is beautiful. Do hon members know what the interesting thing is? It has been proven that veterinary students come from the rural areas. The city guys do not want to do this type of thing, except deal with pets. For the real economical veterinary science, we must get the people from the rural areas and we must make money available to help them study there. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, we are now going to proceed to the next item on the Order Paper, and I need to give you a brief explanation, because it is not … [Interjections.] Yes, you are absolutely right.
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
CULTURAL LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill, as amended by NCOP, and of Report of Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology thereon)
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I would like to remind members that on Friday, 19 October, the ATCs had the following to submit to the House:
The Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, having considered the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill [B46D-2000], amended by the National Council of Provinces and referred to the Committee, reports that it has not accepted the amendments of the Bill, and therefore recommends that the House reject this amended version of the Bill, in terms of Joint Rule 186(1)(b).
The Bill therefore stands referred to the Mediation Committee.
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill, as amended by the National Council of Provinces, rejected.
The House adjourned at 18:12. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Bill, as amended by National Council of Provinces, and rejected
by National Assembly on 25 October 2001, referred to Mediation
Committee in terms of Joint Rule 186(1)(b):
(i) Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill [B 46D - 2000]
(National Assembly - sec 76(1)) - (Mediation Committee).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Report of the Auditor-General on the Summarised Findings of
Performance Audits conducted at Provincial Departments of Housing
[RP 146-2001].
Referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee on Housing
for information.
(2) Report of the Auditor-General on the Summarised Findings
identified during an audit of Social Grants at Provincial
Departments [RP 145-2001].
Referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee on Social
Development for information.
(3) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
South African Library for the Blind for 1999-2000 [RP 164-2001].
(4) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
South African Library for the Blind for 2000-2001 [RP 171-2001].
Referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee on Arts,
Culture, Science and Technology for information.
(5) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Marine Living Resources Fund (formerly known as the Sea Fishery
Fund) for 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 [RP 156-
2001].
Referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
consideration and report and to the Portfolio Committee on
Environmental Affairs and Tourism for information.
- The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:
Report and Financial Statements of South African Veterinary Council for
2000-2001.
COMMITTEE REPORTS: National Assembly:
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B 43 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 18 October 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development,
having considered the subject of the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B
43 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified
by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill
with amendments [B 43A - 2001], and endorses the classification of the
Bill as a section 75 Bill.
The Committee wishes to report as follows:
1. Sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act
No. 51 of 1977), which regulated appeals from the lower courts to
the High Courts, were declared to be inconsistent with the
Constitution, in the case of S v Steyn (Case No. CCT 19/00). The
Department of Justice and Constitutional Development prepared
amendments to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Act, 1977, to bring it in line with the Constitutional Court's
judgment. These amendments were placed before the Committee with
the view of including them in the above Bill.
The Committee decided, in view of the substantial nature of the
relevant amendments, that the matter should be dealt with in a
separate Bill which should be introduced in Parliament as soon as
possible.
2. Clause 6 of the Bill, which introduces a new section 63A in the
Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, provides for the release of accused
persons or amendment of the bail conditions of accused persons on
account of prison conditions. This provision aims to contribute to
the reduction in the number of unsentenced prisoners in
overcrowded prisons.
The Committee received a proposal for the further amendment of
Chapter 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, so as to prevent an
accused person, who has been granted bail, ending up as an
awaiting-trial prisoner simply because of his or her inability to
pay the amount of bail determined by the court. This proposal
entails that an obligation should be placed on presiding officers
to take the personal circumstances of an accused more closely into
account when determining the amount of bail, and that bail must
always be fixed at an amount which the accused person can afford
to pay.
The Committee is of the view that an amendment of this nature may
assist in curbing the unnecessary influx of awaiting-trial
prisoners charged with lesser crimes into prisons. Since the
proposal was received at a late stage during the Committee's
deliberations on the above Bill, the Department of Justice and
Constitutional Development is requested to investigate the matter
thoroughly and to introduce appropriate amending legislation
during the next session of Parliament.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Health on the Mental Health Care Bill [B 69 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 24 October 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Health, having considered the subject of the Mental Health Care Bill [B 69 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 76), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 76 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 69A - 2001].
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services on the Correctional Services Amendment Bill [B 8B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 23 October 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services, having considered the Correctional Services Amendment Bill [B 8B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75) and a proposed amendment of the National Council of Provinces (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, p 1062), referred to the Committee, reports that it does not support the proposed amendment, and recommends that the Bill be passed without further amendment.
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on the
Companies Amendment Bill [B 35 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75),
dated 24 October 2001:
The Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry, having considered
the Companies Amendment Bill [B 35 - 2001] (National Assembly -
sec 75) and proposed amendments of the National Council of
Provinces (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, p 1068),
referred to the Committee, reports the Bill with amendments [B 35A
- 2001].
Report to be considered.