National Council of Provinces - 03 April 2001
TUESDAY, 3 APRIL 2001 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 14:06.
The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr N M RAJU: Madam Chair, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House:
That the Council -
(1) notes that the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Legislature ended the current financial year with savings of R270 million, thus making the kingdom province debt-free;
(2) further notes with satisfaction and approbation that such a healthy financial state was possible as a result of the Ministry of Finance, under the able stewardship of MEC Peter Miller, having complied with the Public Finance Management Act;
(3) conveys the plaudits of the National Council of Provinces to the Minister and his erstwhile team of Treasury officials; and
(4) challenges other provinces who may be in the red to follow suit.
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, at the next sitting of the Council I will move:
That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) all major political parties in the Sudan have committed
themselves, in writing, through the Declaration of Principles
and other declarations and instruments, to resolution of the
conflict between north and south, by self-determination for the
people of southern Sudan, exercised through a referendum;
(b) the Sudanese churches have set out their position in various
fora;
(c) the Sudanese churches fully endorse the right of the southern
Sudanese to decide their own future; and
(d) the referendum must be preceded by a comprehensive ceasefire,
must be free and fair, must be totally transparent with
international supervision and must include all options (which
currently include unity, separation, federation and
confederation);
(2) therefore calls on the ecumenical movement, the Sudanese parties and all peace-loving peoples and nations to -
(a) support self-determination for the people of southern Sudan;
(b) thereby bring just and lasting peace to the conflict which has
continued for nearly 50 years; and
(c) in the same way allow the other marginalised groups to exercise
their right of self-determination; and
(3) further calls on the South African Government to support the position of the Sudanese churches and all the political parties to give force and effect to their undertakings on self-determination for the Southern Sudan.
Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Voorsitter, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek by die volgende sitting van die Raad gaan voorstel:
Dat die Raad -
(1) met skok en afgryse kennis neem van die vermelde omstandighede waarin baie bejaardes van die Noord-Kaap verkeer;
(2) se besorgdheid spruit uit ondersoeke wat verlede jaar in Kimberley en Upington gedoen is, waarin bevind is dat -
(a) ongeveer 60% van pensioenarisse geld aan mikro-leners
skuld en tussen 30% en 40% rente per maand moet betaal;
(b) talle uitbetaalpunte nie water, toilette, beskutting of
stoele het vir die bejaardes wat ure lank in lang toue moet
staan nie;
(c) omstandighede by veral Warrenton, Barkly-Wes, haglik is;
(d) finansiële misbruik plaasvind deurdat kinders hulle ouers
forseer om afstand te doen van hulle pensioen en
pensioenarisse selfs aangerand is deur familielede;
(e) Katowa Coetzee (85) van Upington haar gereeld in
familiegevegte bevind waar sy geviktimiseer word om vir
hulle drank met haar pensioengeld te koop; en
(f) talle bejaarde mense in die Upington-gebied verwaarloos
word - 'n dame van 72 jaar is gevind nadat sy vir drie dae
alleen gelaat is; sy was gedehidreer en vuil;
(3) daarvan kennis neem dat ek self besoek by die Raaswater-nedersetting naby Upington afgelê het waar die woord ``godverlate’’ vir die eerste keer werklik betekenis gekry het; en
(4) versoek dat hierdie saak ernstig benader word om ‘n verskil te help maak in die lewens van hierdie vaders en moeders van ons. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the Council I shall move:
That the Council -
(1) notes with shock and abhorrence the reported conditions in which many of the elderly in the Northern Cape find themselves;
(2) has misgivings arising out of investigations conducted in Kimberley and Upington last year in which it was found that -
(a) approximately 60% of pensioners owe money to micro lenders and
are having to pay between 30% and 40% interest per month;
(b) many payout points have no water, toilets, shelter or chairs for
the elderly, who have to stand for hours in long queues;
(c) conditions at Warrenton, Barkly West, are particularly critical;
(d) financial abuse is taking place as children are forcing their
parents to part with their pensions and pensioners even have
been assaulted by family members;
(e) Katowa Coetzee (85) regularly finds herself in family fights
when she is victimised into buying them liquor with her pension
money; and
(f) many of the elderly in the Upington area are neglected - a lady
of 72 was found after she had been left alone for three days;
she was dehydrated and dirty;
(3) notes that I myself visited the Raaswater settlement near Upington, where the word “godforsaken” for the first time truly took on meaning; and
(4) requests that this issue be dealt with in all seriousness so as to help make a difference in the lives of these fathers and mothers of ours.]
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House: That the Council -
(1) notes with appreciation that there is a substantial decline in the number of reported cholera cases in KwaZulu-Natal;
(2) calls on the health sector to keep ensuring the closer monitoring, supervision and training of health personnel at peripheral level, in order to increase community awareness and minimise errors related to case diagnosis and reporting; and
(3) congratulates the Joint Crisis Committee in its efforts to raise consciousness about the risks related to cholera during the outbreak.
EXECUTION OF MARIETTE BOSCH
(Draft Resolution)
Dr E A CONROY: Voorsitter, ek stel hiermee sonder kennis voor:
Dat die Raad - (1) sonder om ‘n mening uit te spreek oor die skuld of onskuld van Mariette Bosch aan die misdaad waarvan sy beskuldig en waarvoor sy veroordeel is, sy diepe ontsteltenis en weersin uitspreek daaroor dat die owerhede van die Republiek van Botswana -
(a) dit goed gedink het om die Suid-Afrikaanse burger verlede
Saterdag, 31 Maart, in totale geheimhouding tereg te stel sonder
om haar die basiese mensereg te gun van 'n laaste geleentheid om
finaal van haar geliefdes en naasbestaandes afskeid te neem; en
(b) haar naasbestaandes eers gister, op 2 April, daarvan in kennis
gestel het; en
(2) van mening is dat die feit dat haar familie klaarblyklik op ‘n leuenagtige wyse die dag voor haar teregstelling van haar af weggehou is deur hulle toegang tot die korrektiewe fasiliteit te weier op grond van ‘n sogenaamde inspeksie van die fasiliteit wat in daardie stadium aan die gang was, hierdie miskenning van ‘n finale mensereg nog soveel meer onmenslik, afstootlik en weersinwekkend maak. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.)
[Dr E A CONROY: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) without expressing an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Mariette Bosch with regard to the crime of which she was accused and for which she was sentenced, expresses its deep dismay at and aversion to the fact that the authorities of the Republic of Botswana -
(a) deemed it fit to execute this South African citizen in total
secrecy last Saturday, 31 March, without granting her the basic
human right of a last opportunity finally to take leave of her
loved ones and family; and
(b) informed her family about it only yesterday, 2 April; and
(2) is of the opinion that the fact that her family was apparently kept from her the day before her execution in an untruthful manner in that they were denied access to the correctional facility on the grounds of a so-called inspection of the facility that was taking place at the time, makes this denial of a final human right so much more inhumane, abhorrent and disgusting.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Is there any objection to that motion? There is an objection. The motion therefore becomes notice of a motion.
DEATHS IN CENTRAL JOHANNESBURG FIRE
(Draft Resolution)
Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes with shock the death of four people, when a fire swept through a double-storey building in central Johannesburg early this morning;
(2) further notes that police expect to find more bodies inside the building;
(3) expresses its deepest sympathy with the relatives and friends of the victims; and
(4) wishes the injured a speedy recovery.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
MURDERS OF FARMERS AND THE ELDERLY
(Draft Resolution)
Ms E C GOUWS: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes -
(a) the ongoing murders on farmers and other elderly people,
especially the three murders on elderly people in the Peninsula;
(b) the shock and anger experienced by those attending funerals and
standing at the open graves of murdered people, to which the
proposer, who attended the funeral of the 70-year old lady in
Patensie, can testify; and
(c) that innocent people are being murdered;
(2) expresses its concern about the apparent inability of the Government to prevent these murders and even to apprehend the murderers; and
(3) calls upon the President to intervene with drastic steps.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
SOUTH AFRICAN BID TO HOST 2010 SOCCER WORLD CUP
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G A LUCAS: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that football’s world governing body, Fifa, has finally put the controversy of the 2010 World Cup to rest, confirming that the prestigious event would go to Africa for the first time;
(2) further notes that South Africa has, meanwhile, become the first African country to announce a bid to host the finals, come 2010; and
(3) believes that justice will be done if South Africa’s bid succeeds because South Africa, which was the clear favourite to host the 2006 World Cup, lost to Germany by one vote after Oceania delegate Charles Dempsey defied his confederation and abstained from casting his ballot.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
WORKING CONDITIONS IN DURBAN MAGISTRATES' COURT BUILDING
(Draft Resolution) Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, I move without notice: That the Council -
(1) takes note of the unsatisfactory working conditions in the Durban Magistrates’ Court Building caused by the lack of proper ventilation and air-conditioning as a result of the frequent malfunctioning and breakdown of the air-conditioning plant in the building as well as the frequent malfunctioning and breakdown of lifts;
(2) believes that the main cause of the aforesaid problems is a lack of proper maintenance of the said air-conditioning plant and lifts;
(3) acknowledges that the aforesaid problems result in unacceptable discomfort levels, especially on hot days, for the people working in the said building, including magistrates, prosecutors, lawyers, interpreters, social workers, administrative staff, police members, witnesses and other members of the public having to attend the courts, and prisoners who are kept in the court cells; (4) notes that the aforesaid unacceptable discomfort levels -
(a) pose a potential health risk to the said people;
(b) result in extreme frustration and lower productivity;
(c) result in more cases being remanded and fewer cases being
finalised;
(d) result in the early closure of courts on certain days,
which of course all result in increasing the already
unacceptably high number of awaiting-trial prisoners, the
unnecessary wastage of taxpayers' money, and the unnecessary
wastage of legal fees for lawyers; and
(e) affect the dignity of the courts negatively in that in
some courts the magistrates, prosecutors and attorneys out
of necessity attend court sessions without legal gowns; and
(5) calls upon the Ministers for Justice and Constitutional Development and of Public Works to furnish the Council with a full report in respect of the aforesaid situation as soon as possible.
Mr J L MAHLANGU: Chairperson, I would recommend that we adopt the following amendment:
That the following paragraph be added after paragraph (5):
(6) recommends that the relevant portfolio and select committees that will be visiting KwaZulu-Natal visit this particular court, and that the select committee report to the Council thereon.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mr Matthee, that is a proposed amendment to the motion. Is it acceptable?
Mr P A MATTHEE: Yes, Chairperson, it is acceptable for that to be added. Amendment agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
Mr M E SURTY: Chairperson, I have a further amendment to propose. The maintenance of our court buildings is in the hands of the Department of Public Works. The Department of Justice merely uses the facilities. I therefore move as an amendment:
That, in paragraph (5), Ministers for Justice and Constitutional
Development and'' be substituted byMinister’’.
Amendment agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
Motion, as amended, agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution, namely:
That the Council -
(1) takes note of the unsatisfactory working conditions in the Durban Magistrates’ Court Building caused by the lack of proper ventilation and air-conditioning as a result of the frequent malfunctioning and breakdown of the air-conditioning plant in the building as well as the frequent malfunctioning and breakdown of lifts;
(2) believes that the main cause of the aforesaid problems is a lack of proper maintenance of the said air-conditioning plant and lifts;
(3) acknowledges that the aforesaid problems result in unacceptable discomfort levels, especially on hot days, for the people working in the said building, including magistrates, prosecutors, lawyers, interpreters, social workers, administrative staff, police members, witnesses and other members of the public having to attend the courts, and prisoners who are kept in the court cells;
(4) notes that the aforesaid unacceptable discomfort levels -
(a) pose a potential health risk to the said people;
(b) result in extreme frustration and lower productivity;
(c) result in more cases being remanded and fewer cases being
finalised;
(d) result in the early closure of courts on certain days,
which of course all result in increasing the already
unacceptably high number of awaiting-trial prisoners, the
unnecessary wastage of taxpayers' money, and the unnecessary
wastage of legal fees for lawyers; and
(e) affect the dignity of the courts negatively in that in
some courts the magistrates, prosecutors and attorneys out
of necessity attend court sessions without legal gowns;
(5) calls upon the Minister of Public Works to furnish the Council with a full report in respect of the aforesaid situation as soon as possible; and
(6) recommends that the relevant portfolio and select committees that will be visiting KwaZulu-Natal visit this particular court, and that the select committee report to the Council thereon.
REPORTED DISREGARD OF ORDERS OF COURT BY STATE OFFICIALS
(Draft Resolution)
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes the report in last Sunday’s Sunday Times that state officials regularly disregard Orders of Court;
(2) reiterates that the rule of law is one of the foundation stones on which our democracy rests; and
(3) therefore requests the hon Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to investigate this phenomenon, take measures to ensure that state officials show due respect for orders of court and inform this Council of both his findings and the remedial steps he has taken to correct such disgraceful conduct on the part of certain state officials.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Is there any objection to that motion? There is an objection. The motion therefore becomes notice of a motion.
RACIST MURDER OF TSHEPO MATLOGA
(Draft Resolution)
Mr T B TAABE: Madam Chair, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes -
(a) with anger the brutal and callous murder in the Northern
Province of Tshepo Matloga, whose body was subsequently thrown
into a crocodile-infested river;
(b) that other sections of our society are not given to honest
admissions that racism still exists in society, and that it
seems that the more loudly they deny it, the more racism rears
its ugly head;
(c) that no doubt exists that Tshepo's murder was a racist and
barbaric act by people who see ``black'' as a euphemism for
``lower class'' or even ``subhuman'';
(d) that South Africa will take a quantum leap the day we begin to
learn to accept one another for who we are and what we can
become;
(e) that the day will come when the likes of the rugby players
involved in this callous, heinous and atrocious act of murder
face the full wrath of the law;
(f) that the day will come that we learn that we can be more than
bigots and create a responsible society; and
(g) that this incident and many others of this nature ...
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, on a point of order: The assumptions that the hon member is making are only assumptions. The case is still in progress, and I have a feeling that the subject matter of his motion might be sub judice and that his motion is therefore not in order.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I believe that there has been an appearance in court. I am not sure. A charge has been put. I am therefore not sure that the sub judice rule applies at this time. If it does, we will review the matter of the motion. For now, Mr Taabe should proceed.
Mr T B TAABE: Madam Chair, my motion continues:
… should galvanise us into a strong resolve to eliminate the remaining vestiges of racism in this country; and
(2) commends the SAPS for their swift action in rounding up the scum of society.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Is there any objection to the motion? There is an objection. [Interjections.] The motion will therefore become notice of a motion. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! I hope that the time will come in the NCOP when we can move motions on all such occurrences in our country in one. I am concerned, as a presiding officer, at the apparent development in our House of the practice of moving motions on brutal acts of a similar nature relating to particular groupings in our society. I believe members of the House of all provinces and parties need to become aware of this practice and to desist. It does not accord well with the role we should play in our society. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
We have now come to the end of the time available for motions. We therefore move on. The time has ended, hon members. I do not know whether you wish to dispute my ruling. Mrs Vilakazi, is that a point of order?
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: No, Chairperson, it is not a point of order. I raised my hand because I still have a motion without notice. The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I have indicated that the time for motions has ended.
EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF OPERATION OF SECTIONS 51 AND 52 OF CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Madam Chairperson, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the Council gives its consent that the President by proclamation in the Gazette extend the period of operation of sections 51 and 52 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 (Act No 105 of 1997), in terms of section 53(2) of the said Act for a further period of two years, with effect from 1 May 2001.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
PRECEDENCE TO ORDER OF THE DAY
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Madam Chairperson, I move without notice:
That precedence be given to Order No 3 on the Order Paper.
I have consulted with the Whips of the political parties, and there is no objection to the request.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATING UNITS AND SPECIAL TRIBUNALS AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Chairperson, the purpose of the Bill before the House is to bring the provisions of section 3(1) of the principal Act into line with the Constitution of the Republic.
It will be remembered that the Constitutional Court, in the matter of the South African Insurance Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath and others last year, ruled that the said provisions of the principal Act were unconstitutional because they flouted a basic principle of our constitutional system, namely a separation of powers.
It will also be remembered that the Constitutional Court quite correctly observed that there was need for the legislature and the executive to be given ample opportunity to deal with the element of unconstitutionality that had been identified in the principal Act.
However, it will also be remembered that the Constitutional Court, though giving us a period not exceeding 12 calendar months, also said that we would have to deal with this particular issue without any undue delay, whilst, at the same time, of course, allowing us enough time to deal with other areas of potential unconstitutionality such as were identified not only by the Constitutional Court, but by the other courts as well in the process of dealing with numerous matters deriving from the utilisation of powers extended to the executive in the principal Act.
As I have said, that is the principal aim: to bring this Act into line with the Constitution. There are, of course, other consequential amendments that the Bill also deals with.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the judge who is the current head of the current Special Investigating Unit for the work that he and his unit have done hitherto.
I am aware that there have indeed been quite a number of problems and tensions relating to that Act, some of which problems and tensions, as I have already indicated before this House, came before our courts, including the Constitutional Court. But overall it cannot be denied that a very important effort was mounted by Judge Willem Heath and his special investigating unit to combat the scourge of corruption in our society.
This is the point that I personally made in my affidavit that was submitted to the Constitutional Court. It would be useful to remember again that the Constitutional Court remarked on this point by saying that the fact that all of us did whatever we did with the best of intentions would not make that which was unconstitutional and illegal, constitutional and legal. As is well known we accepted the ruling of the Constitutional Court in this regard and, indeed, we are now embarking on this process of regularising the state of affairs. [Applause.]
Mr J L MAHLANGU: Chairperson, we, indeed, support this amendment. Hon members will be aware that the DP and the New NP, under the banner of the DA, actually opposed this Bill. It has become a very bad habit within this formation to oppose everything that the ANC puts forward, whether it is a piece of fundamental transformation legislation or a hand stretched out in reconciliation.
In most instances the objection to legislation is not based on principle, but is merely done to set them apart from the ANC. This blindness can only be characterised as an ambition to present an alternative to the ANC, and their failure to see that they are merely opposing legislation for the sake of not being seen to be associating with anything that the ANC proposes. It is unfortunate that the New NP has joined this alliance. I know that it would have supported this piece of legislation.
The same is true with regard to the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Amendment Bill. The DA’s main problem with this Bill stems from their wrong perception that the proposed amendments remove the aura of independence that characterises this unit, because the President can now appoint or remove the head of a unit. My question to them is whether they would have preferred us to ignore the Constitutional Court and continue with the judge as head of the unit to satisfy their whining about the independence of the unit. I raised that in the committee and the Minister has actually alluded to that.
The reason that I opposed the motion moved earlier by my colleague Mr Lever is that, especially with regard to the whole question of the rule of law, I wanted to send the message that we need to adapt and that we need to respect the rule of law, and I think all of us should do that.
I am sure that they would have preferred us to follow this route because, despite their lip service to the Constitution and the decision of the Constitutional Court, they have shown blatant disrespect for the Constitution and the Constitutional Court. This is proved by their support for the restoration of the death penalty despite the fact that it was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. We know of the recent calls by their mayor here in Cape Town that people should ignore the Constitution, and they have never expressed themselves against this position.
I have a number of other problems as well with the arguments they have raised over the proposed amendments. Underlying their contention that the special investigating unit will no longer be independent because of the powers of the President is a dangerous assumption - that is what they are saying - that the President of the country may use his powers to cover up corruption. The assumption smacks of the racist stereotype that African heads of state and government cannot be trusted. This is the response to the issue.
I want to challenge the DA today to state categorically whether or not it adheres to such racist stereotyping. I also want to remind the DA that it was the ANC that proposed the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act. The ANC insisted on the independence of the unit by appointing a judge as its head. How on earth can they themselves again turn against their own decisions? Why would we have appointed such a unit in the first place if we were not serious about fighting corruption? The DA has, indeed, stubbornly persisted with its argument despite the assurance given by the department that the whole Act is under review.
A number of proposals have been made and are being looked at by by the department, including the proposal that the unit should be disbanded and that its resources should be used to bolster Chapter 9 institutions, such as the Auditor-General and the Public Protector. This is a lengthy process that may even require amendments to the Constitution. In the meantime, we still need to deal with the order from the Constitutional Court to replace the head of the unit with a nonjudicial officer within one year.
The proposed amendments are a logical response to the order from the Constitutional Court. They are a mere shortcut to satisfying the requirements of the court, while the longer-term process of reviewing the whole Act is taking its course. That process will continue. We support this piece of legislation, and I am sure the House will listen to the arguments that will be presented by my colleagues. [Applause.]
Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, all I want to say to my hon colleague is that the accusation of racism is really not worthy of him. I do not think he should do that, it is not worthy of him.
In the first instance, I wish to pay tribute to Judge Heath and thank him for the excellent work that he and his special investigating unit have done in recovering millions of rands lost through corruption.
We agree with the judgment of the Constitutional Court, in the case of the SA Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath and others, delivered on 28 November 2000 and we applaud the fact that the Constitutional Court stressed the importance of the separation of the judiciary from the other branches of the government.
There is a need for courts to be and to be seen to be independent of the legislature and the executive so that they discharge their duty of ensuring that the limits to the exercise of public power are not transgressed. This separation of powers prevents the legislature and the executive from requiring judges to perform nonjudicial functions that are incompatible with the judicial office and which are not appropriate to the central mission of the judiciary and therefore prohibits judges from undertaking such functions.
It is now clear that this was not sufficiently taken into account when the original Bill was debated and accepted in Parliament during 1996. It is very important to note that the Constitutional Court suspended its declaration of invalidity of the provisions of the existing Act which require that a judge be appointed as the head of the investigating unit and the proclamation appointing Judge Heath as the head of the special investigating unit for one year. Parliament therefore has until 27 November to rectify the situation.
Die huidige wet, ook met die wysigings in die wetsontwerp voor ons, maak nie voorsiening vir ‘n instrument om korrupsie te beveg wat inherente jurisdiksie het nie. Die Konstitusionele Hof het beklemtoon dat ‘n ondersoekeenheid sy jurisdiksie ontleen aan, en geheel en al afhanklik is van, die proklamasie wat deur die President uitgereik word.
Die proklamasie van die President stel in iedere en elke geval die grense van die ondersoek van die ondersoekeenheid vas. Dit is belangrik om daarop te let dat die Konstitusionele Hof beklemtoon het dat die President die jurisdiksie van die ondersoekeenheid, soos gedefinieer in die proklamasie, te enige tyd kan verander voordat ‘n ondersoek voltooi is.
Die Konstitusionele Hof het die ondersoekeenhede heeltemal korrek beoordeel as instrumente van die uitvoerende gesag om staatsbates te herwin. Ons kan nie anders as om tot die noodwendige gevolgtrekking te kom dat die huidige Wet, vir die redes genoem, inherent so defektief is dat ‘n werklike verbetering daarvan nie teweeggebring kan word deur wysigings nie.
Die huidige voorgestelde wetgewing voldoen slegs tegnies aan die uitspraak van die hof, maar pak nie die fundamentele tekortkominge aan wat ons nou so duidelik in die gesig staar nie. Om dié rede kan ons die wetsontwerp nie steun nie.
Ons sal die inisiatief neem om nuwe wetgewing voor te stel wat voorsiening sal maak vir die stigting van ‘n permanente teenkorrupsie-eenheid waaraan inherente jurisdiksie toegeken kan word om gevalle van korrupsie te ondersoek. Dit sal dit vir die eenheid moontlik maak om alle klagte van korrupsie te ondersoek en sal hom verplig om gevalle van korrupsie te ondersoek wat deur sekere spesifiek vermelde instansies daarheen verwys word, soos byvoorbeeld deur die ouditeur-generaal. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The current legislation, also with its amendments in the Bill before us, does not make provision for an instrument to fight corruption which has inherent jurisdiction.
The Constitutional Court emphasised that an investigating unit derives its jurisdiction from, and is entirely dependent on, the proclamation which is issued by the President.
The proclamation of the President determines the boundaries of the investigation of the investigating unit in each and every case. It is important to note that the Constitutional Court emphasised that the President can change the jurisdiction of the investigating unit at any time, as defined in the proclamation, before an investigation is completed.
The Constitutional Court correctly evaluated the investigating units as being instruments of the executive authority to reclaim state assets. We cannot but come to the inevitable conclusion that the current Act, for the reasons mentioned, is inherently so defective that an actual improvement thereof cannot be brought about by amendments.
The currently proposed legislation only complies with the technical judgment of the court, but does not tackle the fundamental shortcomings which are now so clearly facing us. For this reason we cannot support this Bill.
We will take the initiative to propose new legislation which will make provision for the establishment of a permanent counter-corruption unit to which inherent jurisdiction will be granted to investigate cases of corruption. This will make it possible for the unit to investigate all charges of corruption and will compel it to investigate cases of corruption which have been referred to it by certain specifically mentioned institutions, such as, for example, by the Auditor General.]
As was pointed out by Senator Radue on 30 October 1996 in the then Senate, the fact that investigating units had to have impartial and independent judges as heads thereof engendered the confidence of the people of South Africa and softened the inherent flaws of the legislation.
Now that the Constitutional Court has correctly pointed out the problems therewith and afforded us a full year to rectify the situation, we should now make use of this opportunity. [Time expired.]
Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Chairperson, I will leave it to the hon member Matthee to go the right people to get an answer. [Laughter.]
The ANC Government is being battered by unfounded and opportunistic utterances like a punch-drunk boxer. This has been the impression portrayed by the media over the past three months. It is a pity that they are not here.
I am not surprised that the New NP and the DA oppose this Bill. This, I may infer, is sickening, symptomatic unreasonableness which, in their view, is genuine concern.
I would like to make it clear that we are not passing this Bill because we have to prove our credentials to anybody, but rather because the people of our country and the region fought a hard and protracted battle so that they could enjoy peace, stability, democracy and social progress without being intimidated by parties which can merge like companies, without due regard to their policies and background, for the simple reason of outvoting the ANC Government, which they did not succeed in doing. I am talking about the DP and New NP which equal the DA.
The ANC Government is determined to protect all communities and will use every device and weapon possible in the legal system to prevent, discourage, interdict and control those who want to destroy the sound values and integrity that all of us hold dear.
I thought that I would read members a quote that will make up my entire contribution to this debate on the issues surrounding the appointment of a judge as the head of the special investigating unit into the arms deal. In his response to the debate on his speech during the opening of the legislature of the Northern Province, Premier Ngoako Ramathlodi stated: On the arms deal, the DA had announced that it is strengthening its representation on Scopa by replacing some members with more senior ones. Public opinion is apparently very happy about this turn of events.
However, a few days later, the ANC fills the vacant positions in Scopa with senior members who, on account of seniority, take over the chairpersonship of the ANC study group, and all hell broke out.
[Laughter.] All of a sudden public opinion suspects that the ANC has something to hide and, at worst, the ANC is undermining Parliament and reducing it to a rubber stamp. Obviously, for a while, we have been quite interested in this person called public opinion. Having observed public opinion, we have come to a very sad conclusion, which is that his views always coincide with the views of the minority opposition in our country.
The ANC really does take great pleasure in wholeheartedly supporting this Bill. It is not the ANC which challenged the constitutionality of the appointment of a judge as head of the special investigating unit, but the SA Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. We are therefore trying to obviate any further uncertainty about the head of the SIU once and for all. If we allow the judge to continue as the head for the period until 27 November 2001, our Constitutional Court will be faced with a backlog of cases.
The unit, without the judge, will attend to all its business as stated in the principal Act. The ANC is trying to rectify the aspect highlighted by the Constitutional Court. [Applause.]
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, the amendment to the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act is a response to the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the matter of the South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers vs Judge Heath and Others.
At the outset I must emphasise that the DA respects the judgments of the Constitutional Court and supports the principles set out in the aforementioned case. In particular, we recognise the need for the separation of powers between the different organs of state. What needs to be debated is whether the amending Bill before us serves the needs of the public. The Heath Unit, as the Special Investigating Unit has become known, has been dogged by undeserved controversy. We must not allow the controversy, undeserved as it is, to deflect our focus from the real issue. The real issue is that our Constitution enjoins all spheres of Government and organs of state to provide effective, transparent, accountable and coherent government for the Republic as a whole, and to be loyal to the Constitution, the Republic and its people. It is the view of the DA that an independent, permanent anticorruption unit, with its own inherent powers to seek out and investigate corruption in Government and organs of state, is an important tool in achieving this constitutional imperative.
This anticorruption unit should be established by an Act of Parliament and should be answerable to Parliament. In other words, the anticorruption unit should be a tool to assist Parliament to carry out its duty to maintain oversight of the national executive authority and organs of state.
In the Act as it stands, and as amended in terms of the present Bill, the Special Investigating Unit is a tool in the hands of the President. It would better serve the needs of accountability and transparency if the Special Investigating Unit was answerable to Parliament rather than the executive. [Interjections.]
Further, in terms of the present setup, as amended by this Bill, the President can constitute one or a number of special investigating units to investigate corruption in terms of specified terms of reference, which can be altered or terminated at any time by the President.
The DA believes that this is undesirable for a number of reasons. Firstly, an anticorruption unit, in whatever form it ultimately takes, should be a permanent unit in order to build up a pool of expertise and experience in investigating corruption and recovering the proceeds of corruption.
Secondly, the President should not be exposed to allegations of interference if he were to alter the terms of reference of a special investigating unit or terminate its mandate.
Thirdly, it would be preferable if the Special Investigating Unit was independent and had a mandate to investigate corruption wherever it was found. This would promote transparency and accountability in Government.
There are a number of ways to achieve these goals. Certain of the Chapter 9 institutions, such as the Public Protector or Auditor-General, could be equipped both with resources and an appropriate mandate to deal with corruption. Alternatively, an independent institution could be set up with the appropriate mandate and resources to tackle the pervasive corruption currently hindering the delivery of transparent and accountable government in all spheres of Government.
The Constitutional Court held that a judge could not head these special investigating units as this was contrary to the doctrine of the splitting of powers implicit in the Constitution; and the court gave Parliament one year to correct the situation. The DA believes that a better alternative could have been found and implemented within the timeframe allowed by the Constitutional Court.
To sum up, the DA believes that an anticorruption unit should be established that is permanent, has a mandate to investigate corruption and recover the proceeds of corruption wherever corruption is to be found, and is independent. In view of the fact that the principal Act, as amended by this Bill, would not fulfil these requirements, the DA will be opposing the Bill.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I would like the hon member to note that in this House we do not have the DA.
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, on a point of order, the Minister of Health, Mr Mahlangu and Ma Lubidla used the term.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, I have made a ruling that in this House we do not have a DA. It was not a question requiring an answer.
Mr T B TAABE: Madam Chair, the Minister of Justice Comrade Penuell Maduna and hon members of this august House, as much as I would have liked not to refer to some of the issues raised by certain members of this House and some of the nonsensical arguments put forward by the hon Lever …
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, please withdraw the word ``nonsensical’’. Mr T B TAABE: Madam Chair, as far as I know, there is nothing to suggest that what I have said is unparliamentary.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, I have made a ruling for you to withdraw the word ``nonsensical’’ for now.
Mr T B TAABE: Madam Chair, I shall do just that so that I can begin to deal with very important matters that I want to put across in this Chamber this afternoon.
As I pointed out earlier on, I would not really want to refer to the other matters. They are somewhat unintelligible issues which hon members of this House have raised this afternoon. But I think we have got to state the facts clearly for the benefit of the South African public.
As members of the House will recall, on 18 November … [Interjections.] … that is typical of the response one would obviously get from a member of this House who is so unintelligible. On 18 November 2000 the Constitutional Court turned down the judgment in the case brought before it
- as was pointed out by other members in this House - by the SA Association of Personal Injury Lawyers versus the President and the Special Investigating Unit headed by Judge Heath.
In this case, the lawyers successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Special Investigating Unit. The President, despite trying very hard to defend the decision to set up the unit, lost this case. This decision effectively outlawed any SIU headed by a judge. The court said further that Judge Heath’s position, as head of the SIU, must be regularised without undue delay, which is precisely what we have done and are seeking to do this afternoon. These are the facts.
The court gave Government and Parliament a year within which to correct other problems identified in some of the powers of the SIU. In granting this one-year period, the court stated quite clearly that there were many problems with the Act that established the SIU. So it was quite clear that the court wanted Heath to be replaced without delay as his continued participation in the work of the SIU would compromise the independence of the judiciary; and that certain elements, obviously, of the principal Act as they stood then with respect to the SIU, were basically inconsistent with the Constitution. This is precisely what the Constitutional Court judgment says.
But there are other equally important issues which, I feel, we would be failing in our duty, as members of the ANC in this committee, if we did not raise sharply in this debate this afternoon. They relate to the cheap and often myopic arguments raised by members of the opposition. They naively argue that these amendments, as proposed, must be delayed and that they should rather be looked at broadly in the principal Act because in their current form they remove the aura of independence that characterises the Special Investigating Unit. What a lot of poppycock and balderdash from these parties! They should rather come out openly and state in this House …
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, as you continue please use language which we understand. [Interjections.]
Mr T B TAABE: Those words were simply meant to express what nonsense comes from the opposition. [Interjections.]
They should rather come out openly and state in this House this afternoon that their concern, largely, is about the very stupid obsession with the inclusion of a particular judge in the investigation into the strategic defence procurement deal, which is part of their quest to undermine the President and the Government of our people in this country. If they have found a political ally in people who persistently argue for their inclusion in such units, they must say so openly. It is clear that these are but part of a broader and sinister political campaign to undermine this Government, which we cannot allow as the ANC.
The point should be made again that the interaction, as all of us will recall, between the judge and the President regarding this matter, showed all of us beyond any reasonable doubt that the President, indeed, co- operated with Judge Heath on this matter. Otherwise, the President would not have shared the kind of information which he shared with the judge, particularly on the deal, if he did not want him to know anything about it. So what exactly is the opposition’s objection basically to the proposed amendments?
Of course, they have again found willing partners in the media who go out of their way to unearth any negative story about the ANC and Government. Those in the media who do those things are referred to as independent journos with a bright future in the profession if they continue to rubbish the ANC and its leaders. [Interjections.] Fine. Let them do it, and we wish them well. [Interjections.]
The opposition to the Bill is nothing but a clear political attempt to get back at the President for his refusal, on the basis of facts before him, to include Judge Heath in the arms deal investigation. The media, a central pillar of our democracy, must not be used by faceless people to hide the agenda of wanting to keep our people under perpetual tutelage in this country. If the Public Protector, for instance, had been part of the investigation at Government’s insistence, despite the Constitutional Court ruling, the media houses would be baying about the sanctity of our courts. They would have said that the decision of the court must be respected. The opposition find it … [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! You reminded us of how debating societies at high schools play with the English language.
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, this is a tiny amendment but it has large-scale consequences. As the hon Matthee and the hon Lever have said, it does not fulfil the need or the gap left by the changing status of the Special Investigating Unit. We have made no secret of the fact that we would like to have the SIU investigate the arms industry deal.
From the early attacks by the Minister of Finance on Mr Justice Heath, it has been clear that this appointment by President Mandela did not serve the perceived interests of the Mbeki Government. He was, as we know, getting too close for comfort. The Government grabbed at the chance, like manna from heaven, offered by the Constitutional Court to exclude Heath and his unit. There can be no other reason.
The SIU has shown that they have the experience - the conscientiousness
and integrity'' - the amendment now calls for. Judge Heath also has the
degree ofindependence’’ and integrity alluded to in the judgment, which
has made him so admired in South Africa and abroad. It was those very
qualities and his effective fight against corruption that caused his
downfall by some of his detractors, the personal injury lawyers, who
themselves were the object of his scrutiny.
The ACDP chairperson considered the description ``impartial’’ that we suggested in the Other Place be added in the amendment to describe a qualified person to lead the SIU. It might have assisted the public perception of what was required, but it was not to be.
The absence of Heath is going to put additional pressure on the remaining investigating authorities, at least as far as the arms industry investigation is concerned. Their integrity, independence and effectiveness will be put under the spotlight. They and Parliament are going to be tested as never before.
The defence inquiry will be a watershed and landmark investigation that will either secure Parliament’s relevance in these matters or forfeit Parliament’s relevance in these matters perhaps for ever.
Anyhow, Heath is a judge and we have the Constitutional Court judgment. On technical grounds, we recognise that the deed is done and we must move on. On technical grounds therefore, we support the legislation, but the gap has not been filled, which is a gap we need to have filled in South Africa. When I listen to the hon member Taabe, my heart sinks. Heaven help South Africa if his views ever become the predominant views in this country. [Interjections.] [Laughter.]
Mr M E SURTY: Chairperson, perhaps I should start with the input by Mr Durr. He seems to forget that the basis of the Constitutional Court judgment was not whether, in fact, Heath was a competent or incompetent judge. The judgment was on the basis of the separation of powers. I think it is not a technical argument, but rather based on principle. In fact, the separation of powers forms the core of our Constitution, and Mr Durr has time and time again raised this issue of the separation of powers. Now to suggest that a ruling by the highest court of this country, the Constitutional Court, is merely a technical issue really deflects from the truth. I think one should look at the approach more carefully. However, I am not going to spend much time on that. I would like to consider more carefully the responses of both Mr Matthee and Mr Lever. Mr Lever suggests that they are opposing this Bill on the basis that there should be an institution created which is quite independent of the President or the executive, and that it must be a permanent institution. He suggests further that such an institution could be located within one of our Chapter 9 institutions. If it is indeed the case that such an institution and anticorruption unit could be attached to the Office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, to the Auditor- General’s office or even to the Oseo unit, then, certainly, that would ostensibly give the DP no basis for opposing this legislation because a remedy could be found in terms of a permanent measure.
What he fails to do is to tell this House the reason why a period of one year was given by the Constitutional Court. Both Mr Matthee and Mr Lever are guilty of doing this. I would like to read from the judgment itself. These were the words of Judge President Chaskalson, who said:
… and to appoint a functionary other than a judge to head the SIU. These are the only declarations that are to be suspended. Although there may be reasons for allowing sufficient time for all matters to be dealt with simultaneously, there are good reasons for the first respondent’s position as the head of the SIU to be regularised without undue delay.
I emphasise “without undue delay”.
Time will however be required for the various committees of Parliament to consider what is to be done and for appropriate legislation to be drafted. Time must also be allowed …
This is important -
… for a new appointment to be made, and for the first respondent to transfer his responsibilities to the new head of the SIU in an orderly fashion.
We are aware that there are thousands of cases that are outstanding, and the suggestion of the DP and the New NP that we are opposing is preposterous and ludicrous. Let us assume that one is in the majority, which those parties will never be in this House or in the other House and has thousands of cases pending. Now, because of some weird idea that one has concocted that there has to be an independent unit located somewhere in a Chapter 9 institution or in some mythical homeland of these parties here one decides to abandon these 30 000 or so cases and not to deal with those prosecutions.
We have a dream, a dream which we can quite easily realise through the existing units. I think fundamental to this argument is one thing - a lack of understanding of what the SIU is all about. Why was it created and where does it come from? It was previously a commission of inquiry. It was always an instrument of the executive. The SIU had to be established by the President. The parameters and the mandate had to be conferred by the President. The mandate could be altered by the President, and this has always been the case. Nothing has changed or been altered.
There was never any voice of opposition. At no time did the New NP or the DP say, ``Look, the SIU is an instrument of the executive and, certainly, should not be tolerated. We require a permanent structure’’. Why now, why now with the removal of Judge Heath is this being aired for the first time, as Mr Durr airs it, which is understandable? We have never questioned the integrity of Judge Heath and neither has the Minister. In fact, the Minister has commended Judge Heath for the wonderful work he has done. But why now, with the removal of Heath, is the unit somehow superfluous, redundant and unimportant? Why now, for the first time after more than four years, is there a cry for a permanent structure? [Interjection.]
I think the attempt here is to mislead the public, regrettably. The public must be told and informed, and it is important that they are told that there are Chapter 9 institutions. These are constitutional structures established by virtue of provisions in the Constitution. The Special Investigating Unit was never a Chapter 9 institution. It was always an instrument of the executive, to be used by the executive against corruption and other nefarious activities that may occur at any level of government. In fact, that instrument has been used quite well and effectively and efficiently, and it has a lot of outstanding work to do. By merely suggesting that they are opposing this Bill on the basis of the fact that there is no permanent structure for the first time, after four years, smacks of deceit and an intention to mislead. I say that with a deep sense of regret.
I would also like to say that even when we come to Chapter 9 institutions - and we talking about institutions like the Human Rights Commission, the Gender Commission and the Auditor-General - independence was never a requirement and is not a requirement in the Constitution or in legislation. What is required is a person who is suitably qualified, a suitable and proper person. The amendment goes beyond that. It says that it should be a person of integrity. Judge Chaskalson says in his judgment that not only judges are people of integrity.
People of integrity are found not only in the judiciary, but also elsewhere and one must recognise that fact. The amendment itself says that it has to be a person who is fit and proper, and a person who is conscientious and who has integrity.
These are the five requirements that are put into this legislation in order to ensure that in the course of the appointment, the person would need a high threshold in terms of fulfilling a particular task.
To suggest that independence, something which has never been raised when constitutional structures, ie Chapter 9 institutions, were established, now becomes a question when we are talking about an instrument of the executive
- not a judicial organ, but an instrument of the executive - in order to fulfil a particular task. I find it quite ridiculous to raise this at this point in time.
As I said earlier, and I repeat it, I think the opposition here is merely attempting to politic and mislead the public in formulating a perception that this institution is not an institution of the President or the executive with which to fight corruption, that it was an institution that was quite independent, and that what the ANC is now trying to do is limit its powers to the extent that it becomes a poodle that can do nothing at all.
I think one should be honest by saying that the SIU has carried out responsible, efficient and effective work, and can continue to do so. By merely opposing the legislation on the basis of an alternative which Mr Lever has not even formulated in order to canvass possibilities and even state what some of those possibilities are, they are now trying to say that we must stop the process of Special Investigating Units and take away this instrument of fighting corruption until we have developed an alternative permanent structure. Really, this does not take the interests of the people of South Africa into account.
I say that we should support the Bill unquestionably. It is an old piece of legislation that is not being fundamentally changed, but merely being made to fall within the ambit of the ruling of the Constitutional Court.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I must say I have enjoyed the debate. I must thank the members who have supported the Bill and those who have opposed it for such a good debate.
Let me start with the remarks by hon member Kent Durr. It is alleged by the hon member that the President - and, may I say, perhaps I as well, without being mentioned in any specific way - opportunistically jumped - or is it gyrated - as the Constitutional Court ruled the way it did in this matter.
Before one makes any such remarks, one has to go back to the judgment and read it carefully. It is in good English and very simple and one should take time to read it. It does not use any complex language or words, and if one looks at it carefully, it tells one who the four respondents were. The four respondents were, in this order: Willem Hendrik Heath, the Special Investigating Unit, the President of the Republic of South Africa and the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development.
Part of paragraph 9 of the judgment says that the first and second respondents, ie Heath and the so-called Heath unit, indicated in the High Court that they took a neutral stand in the matter and that they would abide by the decision of that court. They have made no representations to that court.
The third and fourth respondents, opposed the appeal. The third and fourth respondents, as I have said, are none other than the President of the Republic and this Minister. It is because we believed that having this unit headed by a judge was a correct thing to do. In my own affidavit I actually said that a judge was selected because we were looking for a person of integrity, and this is the answer that the judge gives.
Paragraph 38 says that people of integrity are not found only among judges; that is what it says. This paragraph also says a bit more, and that brings me to the remarks by both hon members Matthee and Lever. This paragraph is very useful to bear in mind and one might want to do that long after this Bill has indeed been enacted. Paragraph 38 says that the functions that the head of the SIU has to perform are executive functions, which, under our system of Government are ordinarily performed by the police, members of staff of the national prosecution authority or the State Attorney. I would like to stop there. If one looks carefully at this Act, it never was the intention of the two Houses to create a new permanent entity to deal with the problem of corruption in this country. It was indeed intended, as the Act itself says, and I quote from the preamble to the Act:
To provide for the establishment of Special Investigating Units for the purpose of investigating serious malpractices or maladministration in connection with the administration of state institutions, state assets and public money as well as any conduct which may seriously harm the interests of the public …
That is the part of the preamble to the Act.
Again, if one looks carefully at section 3 of the principal Act, there is no suggestion that this should be a redeployment of a judge of the High Court. Such a judge would be appointed for the duration of that particular investigation into serious malpractices or maladministration such as would have been adequately defined. For that purpose, one would then issue a proper proclamation which would be an instrument by means of which one would outline the parameters of the investigation and the powers of the investigating unit and its head.
If it is the view of these institutions that one needs to discard that, then we need a totally separate discussion. At the same time I am not saying that it is inappropriate to raise the question - far from it. I am saying that we should deal with this Bill, the basic purport of which, as I said in my introductory remarks, is to bring the principal Act, as it stands, in line with our Constitution, pursuant to the decision of the Constitutional Court, and stop there.
There are many areas of unconstitutionality which have been identified by numerous seats of the High Court which we have to grapple with. But fortunately, in that regard we do not have any constraints of time. In this regard, we have only a year to deal with this issue, and we have chosen that we should not wait for the whole year because there is no reason for dealing with this issue right at the tale end of the one-year period. We thought it is right to deal with it now. But we will be bringing back to both Houses of Parliament a Bill seeking to address these other areas of unconstitutionality, and, for that purpose my department has already been appropriately instructed. Therefore there will be this sort of debate.
I do not think that anyone of us should fear that at the level of the executive there are people who fear transparency. I was flabbergasted when I read statements purporting to be coming from the DA. I know, Chairperson that you have ruled that there is no DA here, so I am not talking about people who may regard themselves as the DA here. What I am saying is that statements purporting to be coming from the DA were suggesting that though they believe in transparency, when it comes to the investigation of allegations that have been thrown around with regard to the so-called R43 billion armaments deal they would prefer that the intense light of transparency should not be shone here.
We in the executive and, may I say, we in the ANC, want everyone who has any evidence to come forward and give it as esidlangalaleni, or in public, and be cross-examined in public, such as does happen in our courts of law. [Interjections.]
Open public hearings are a matter of basic principle. Hearings in-camera are a mere exception to the general rule. There must be particular reasons why a matter should not be heard in public. We are not certain why those who have said all sorts of things, including Patricia de Lille, would want to hide behind in camera hearings. We want them to repeat the statements that they have been so brazen as to make all along, and be cross-examined. [Interjections.] This is how one will get to the bottom of this. There is no other way. Humanity has not invented any better way than thorough cross- examination. [Applause.]
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, will the hon the Minister take a question?
The MINISTER: Chairperson, I certainly will, because there is still a minute or two left.
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, can the Minister distinguish for me between an investigation and a court hearing? Investigations are generally not open to the public, while court hearings are.
The MINISTER: Chairperson, there is indeed a basic difference. One is not the other. Does that satisfy you? [Laughter.] What is it a person fears if she is armed with critical evidence that would enable her to name certain people? She wants them carted off to jail for long periods by saying that a certain person bribed so-and-so by means of certain things, and that somebody committed a certain offence under our law. What is it that such a witness fears after she has been throwing around all sorts of dollops of glossolalia about this? [Interjections.]
Such a person then says she would want to speak in camera on what she has always said she knew. That is where I have a problem. In other words, the Public Protector should be entitled to say that a certain person has made all the statements. We want to hear that person. Nothing should prevent the Public Protector from calling upon anyone of us who participated at any level whatsoever in the making of decisions, including members of Cabinet. We know the answers, and we do not want to be protected from public hearings. We will give the answers, and we will submit to thorough cross- examination, so that the truth gets told once and for all. We shall not answer for and on behalf of people involved in subcontracts, because we were not involved in those. At no point was a subcontract submitted to us for evaluation, but we shall answer in respect of the primary contracts, publicly. We say, our accusers must also come forward and declare their evidence publicly. [Interjections.]
Nothing shall be hidden from the people of South Africa. That is our motto in this regard. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Party and New National Party dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - RSA/CANADA EXTRADITION TREATY
Mr J L MAHLANGU: Chairperson, the concept of co-operation in criminal matters by way of extradition is very old. It had its origin in the ancient practice of rendition, which was the handing over of persons by one sovereign to another.
Over the years the principles of extradition were refined, until by the end of the 19th century a coherent body of legal rules governing extradition had developed. The major principles of these rules still apply to contemporary extradition law. The Extradition Treaty between South Africa and Canada has been made possible through a very amicable and stable political relationship between the two countries.
Canada, as hon members may know, was for many years a strong supporter of the struggle against apartheid. The Canadians supported and funded numerous South African nongovernmental organisations which challenged the apartheid system through the courts, through support for educational upgrading and other programmes to promote a more equitable society.
During the period 1990 to 1994, Canada provided extensive support to the peaceful transition to democracy, including the development of an interim constitution and preparations for the nonracial elections in April 1994. Since the elections of 1994, Canada has supported South African re-entry into the broader range of multilateral organisations, and the two countries have worked closely on important multilateral issues, such as the renewal of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The extradition treaty further cements this co-operation, and highlights the strengthening relationship between the two countries. Its main aim is to provide a procedure which will facilitate the surrender on a reciprocal basis of persons accused or convicted of the commission of what is called extraditable offences within the jurisdiction of South Africa and Canada. This House, towards the end of last year, passed a similar treaty between South Africa and the USA.
In terms of this procedure, requests for extradition must be made by the respective ministers of justice and should also be accompanied by certain documents, such as a certified copy of the warrant of arrest where a person sought to be extradited is an accused, or a copy of the documents that records the conviction where the person is already convicted.
What is important to know is that the extradition treaty makes it mandatory for both countries to refuse extradition where the offence is of a political nature, and provides both countries with discretion to refuse a request for extradition under certain circumstances. This is an important provision, because it allows South Africa to refuse to hand over a person if there is a possibility that the death penalty may be imposed on such a person. This is in line with our own constitutional obligation to uphold the right to life.
The real importance of this treaty lies in the fact that it will establish a higher degree of co-operation between our justice system and that of Canada.
The higher degree of co-operation is necessitated by the threat posed by the fast-evolving and dynamic criminal environment, which feeds on globalisation and on the latest technological developments. This is a new and dynamic criminal environment that does not show any respect for national boundaries. That is why countries such as South Africa and Canada must co-operate and show these criminals that neither country will be a safe haven for them.
I can indicate that all parties have supported the treaty. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Report adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS - RSA/CANADA MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TREATY
Mr J L MAHLANGU: Chairperson, the treaty before us stems from a meeting of international experts held by the United Nations in order to develop and promote international mutual assistance practices.
The mutual legal assistance in criminal matters treaty is a relatively recent development. The treaty seeks to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regulate and facilitate procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two justice departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve processes.
The Government of the Republic of South Africa and the government of Canada undertook to enter into a treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. This was followed by the approval of the President of South Africa on 11 November 1999 that the treaty be entered into.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, and her Canadian counterpart signed the treaty on 12 November 1999 in Durban during the Commonwealth Heads of State meeting.
Today marks the final stage of the ratification process as provided for by section 231(2) of the Constitution, which is as follows:
An international agreement binds the Republic only after it has been approved by resolution in both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces, unless it is an agreement referred to in subsection (3).
Section 231(3) does not require the approval of both the Houses.
In the South African context, assistance in criminal matters means assistance both in statutory and common law offences, and for Canada it means investigations and proceedings relating to any offence created by parliament, in other words, the parliament of Canada, or by the legislature of any province in Canada. These include investigations, prosecutions and proceedings relating to offences concerning taxation, duties, customs and foreign exchange.
The treaty also deals with important legal safeguards as it provides that assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct, which is the subject of the investigation, prosecution or proceedings in the requesting state, would constitute an offence under the laws of the requested state. The form of assistance that will be required will include locating and identifying persons and objects; serving documents, including documents seeking the attendance of persons; search and seizure; taking evidence and obtaining statements; authorising the presence of persons from the requesting state at the execution of requests; making detained persons available to give evidence or assist in investigations; facilitating the appearance of witnesses or the assistance of persons in investigations; taking measures to locate, restrain or forfeit the proceeds of crime; and, lastly, any other form of assistance not prohibited by the law of the requested state.
In addition, article 2 provides that the requested state shall not refuse to execute a request on the grounds of bank secrecy. Article 4 provides that assistance may be refused if, in the opinion of the requested state, the execution of the request would impair its sovereignty, security, public order, essential public interest, or prejudice the safety of any person. Assistance may also be postponed by the requested state if execution of the request would interfere with an ongoing investigation or prosecution in the requested state.
Article 18 provides for the limitation of use or disclosure of information or evidence furnished for purposes other than those stated in the request without the prior consent of the central authority. In South Africa the central authority is the Director-General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development or a person designated by him or her. In terms of the treaty, the central authority in Canada is the Minister of Justice or any other official designated by that Minister.
Lastly, article 24 provides for entry into force, amendment and termination. This article provides that the treaty shall enter into force on the date on which the contracting parties notify each other in writing that their respective legal requirements have been met, and that the date of entry into force will be the date of the last notification.
The treaty also states that it may be amended by mutual consent, and the parties may also, by mutual consent, terminate this treaty on such terms and conditions as may be agreed to between the two parties. In addition to this, either contracting party may terminate the treaty. The termination shall take effect six months from the date on which it was notified to the other contracting party. I can also indicate with regard to this treaty that it has the support of all parties. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Report adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
The MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Chairperson, information is a resource that is as essential for a nation’s economic development as are land, labour and enterprise. The libraries and information services sector is one of the stakeholders in the development of an information society. An information infrastructure and system of information dissemination is one of the infrastructures needed by society to support economic prosperity.
For those reasons, the objective for the submission of the Bill is to establish a council that will advise me and the Minister of Education on matters related to library and information services.
Libraries are one of the building blocks of the local information and knowledge infastructure which is necessary to support knowledge-based economic development. They are also vital for community development and information dissemination to communities.
With regard to the constitutional framework for the provision of library services, a new legislative framework has existed since 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides the constitutional framework for the provision of library and information services in South Africa. Part A of Schedule 5 of the Constitution lists ``libraries other than national libraries’’ as one of the functional areas of exclusive provincial legislative competence.
Although all libraries, except the national libraries, are therefore a provincial responsibility as a functional area of exclusive provincial legislative competence, my department is the focal point for handling matters related to library and information services at national level. My colleague the Minister of Education is likewise responsible for matters relating specifically to educational libraries. We work in partnership dealing with matters that have an impact an on the total library and information services system in the country. Within this system, community libraries have a particular important role to provide access to all communities. As decisions have to be taken after consultation of the library and information services sector, there is a need for a mechanism such as an appropriately structured council which can provide this link and provide us, the Minister of Education and I, with professional advice.
The need for such a council was pointed out in previous investigations by my department, namely the White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage of 1996, which recommended that such a council be established to assist in the formulation of library and information service policy, to provide co- ordinating networks and mechanisms, and to set priorities for extending national library and information services. The council was to provide a vehicle for co-ordination at the national level and advise on linkages between the national and provincial governments.
Secondly, the report of the interministerial working group into the library and information service sector’s function at the national level, published in 1997, was the result of an investigation by an interministerial working group appointed by the Minister of Education and I into good governance of the library and information services sector. The working group also recommended that a council be established.
Other reports on policy development initiatives in the library and information services sector during the 1990s also indicated a strong need for a council. Although it was felt that this should be a co-ordinating body, constitutional constraints necessitate that it only be an advisory body. Advice rendered on matters that affect provincial library services will have to be tabled at the appropriate mechanisms, namely the Minmecs, for decision-making in partnerships and in consultation with provinces.
The objective of the National Council for Library and Information Services Bill, 2001, is to establish a council to advise the Minister of Education and the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology on matters relating to library and information services in order to facilitate access to information for all communities.
The functions of the council have been formulated broadly in order to create a proper operational framework for the council and to ensure the maximum benefit of its activities for all users of libraries and information in our country.
The Minister of Education and I will be advised on various aspects of library and information services, including development co-ordination and legislation. Of importance will also be policy formulation regarding the allocation of public funds, training of library staff, and the promotion of literacy, a culture of reading and information.
It will be expected of the proposed council to make sensible but innovative and practical recommendations, within the framework of realistic funding possibilities, on transforming South African library and information services to the advantage of all users of information and in so doing to strengthen our national system of innovation.
The council will consists of 12 members to be appointed by me with the concurrence of the Minister of Education, and after a process of public nomination. One of the members will be the national librarian of South Africa. Liasa, the Library and Information Association of South Africa, will also be represented on the council in order to facilitate co-operation between the council and the professional association of the library information sector. The criteria for appointment of members, their tenure and nomination procedures are also included. Procedures to ensure the smooth functioning of the council and its committees are also provided for.
Library and information services in South Africa need transformation to answer the needs of all citizens. This sector faces a number of challenges and the council will have to look at such issues as libraries which are overstretched and burdened with severe financial constraints, disparities in services in urban and rural communities, the shortage of books appropriate to the needs of the majority of the population, the low levels of literacy, the low awareness of the value of reading, the lack of a culture of lifelong learning, and, of course, many other incidental matters.
The council will have to investigate and advise on appropriate and cost- effective ways and new initiatives to optimise limited resources. Change must be effected, and library services that will make a meaningful impact and lead to improved access to information for all communities should be developed. This will require co-operation and the forging of partnerships between all spheres of government, nongovernmental organisations, business and civil society.
We must bring together everybody that deals with libraries and education, as well as the publishing sectors, booksellers, authors, teachers and parents. Services will have to be adapted and extended to ensure the involvement of communities and to make libraries instruments of change.
My colleague the Minister of Education has declared 2001 the Year of the Reader, and I believe that this could be the watershed year when we will begin the process of building a nation of readers. These readers must, eventually, all have access to libraries that will be able to play their core role as instruments of civilisation.
This is a serious matter, indeed, because we will not make headway with the adult education programme if we do not provide a viable and effective library and information services. [Applause.]
Mr D M KGWARE: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, this Bill has been a very interesting one at committee level. I realised that when we dealt with it members were actually discussing and making their inputs in all earnestness. It was very good that they showed a lot of interest and participation.
However, there are a few things that one would like to mention at the end. Library and information services in South Africa, as the Minister has already stated, are characterised by a variety of forms of information provision. This Bill makes provision for fundamental change in form, function and practice. It has been clearly stated and we know that we have not been dealing with it very much. I am referring now to most of our members who are not members of the committee. It is vital that we instil interest in library services. The impact of the global information society and the developmental challenges that it raises necessitate a change in the strategic approach in order to integrate library and information services policy into broader information based on society policy. Research has proved that provision needs to be made for library and information services and for the sustainability of these services in order for the optimum use of modern information technology - I repeat, the optimum use of modern information technology - to be accomplished.
Reports that resulted from the policy investigation outlined that the need for a national advisory council for library and information services still exists to serve as a mechanism to achieve co-ordination of the national strategy within the library and information services system.
I would like to say that, because of these important things we had seen, we wholeheartedly supported the approval of the Bill, although there was a feeling amongst the members that some amendments should be made for the sake of provincial representation. There was a very intense debate around that issue. Members felt that it would be of help if the Ministers could look at it and also become involved in the provinces for the sake of representivity.
On the question of representation, our proposed amendments highlight the provincial representation on such a council and further ensure that the NCOP is in a position to call upon this council to report from time to time. That applies to the question of accountability and oversight as well. These are the feelings.
The amendments are there and only affect clauses 5, 9 and 14. With all these amendments, we propose and accept the Bill with amendments. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution. The Council adjourned at 17:26. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
WEDNESDAY, 28 MARCH 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson: The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the relevant committees as mentioned below:
(1) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Trade and Industry and the Select Committee on Economic Affairs:
Report and Financial Statements of Investment South Africa for
1999-2000.
(2) The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report. It is also referred
to the Portfolio Committee on Labour, the Portfolio Committee on
Minerals and Energy, the Select Committee on Labour and Public
Enterprises and the Select Committee on Economic Affairs for
information:
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Mines
and Works Compensation Fund for 1999-2000 [RP 10-2001].
(3) The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report. It is also referred
to the Portfolio Committee on Public Enterprises and the Select
Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises for information:
Report of the Auditor-General on the Accounts of the Transkei
Electricity Supply Corporation for 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and
for 1 April to 31 December 1997 [RP 184-2000].
(4) The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report. It is also referred
to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs and the Select
Committee on Social Services for information:
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Refugee Relief Fund for 1999-2000 [RP 12-2001].
(5) The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report. It is also referred
to the Portfolio Committee on Education and the Select Committee
on Education and Recreation for information:
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
High School Vorentoe Disaster Fund for 1999-2000 [RP 13-2001].
(6) The following papers are referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report. They are also
referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance and the Select
Committee on Finance for information:
(a) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
of the Independent Development Trust (Main Fund) for 1998-99
[RP 6-2001].
(b) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
of the Temporary Employees' Pension Fund, the Associated
Institutions' Pension and Provident Fund for 1997-98 and 1998-
99 [RP 9-2001].
(7) The following paper is referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report. It is also referred
to the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and Energy and the Select
Committee on Economic Affairs for information:
Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Refsa
(Pty) Limited for the period ended 14 July 1998 [RP 22-2001].
(8) The following papers are referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts for consideration and report:
(a) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
of the President's Fund for 1999-2000 [RP 7-2001].
(b) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
of the State President's Fund for 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-
2000 [RP 14-2001].
(9) The following paper is referred to the Joint Standing Committee
on Defence:
Letter from the President informing Parliament of the employment
of the South African National Defence Force in compliance with the
international obligations of the Republic of Mozambique for
humanitarian assistance during widespread flooding.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Transport:
(a) Protocol between the Government of the Republic of South Africa
and the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management
of The Netherlands concerning Bilateral Cooperation in the Fields
of Transport and Infrastructure Development, tabled in terms of
section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Protocol.
(c) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa
and the Government of the Italian Republic on Cooperation in the
Field of Public Transport, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of
the Constitution, 1996.
(d) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement.
(e) Declaration of Intent between the Department of Transport of the
Republic of South Africa and the Department of Transport of Canada
concerning Technical Cooperation in Transportation, tabled in
terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(f) Explanatory Memorandum to the Declaration of Intent.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the RSA/Canada Extradition Treaty, dated 28 March 2001:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Canada, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Treaty. Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the RSA/Canada Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, dated 28 March 2001:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Treaty between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Canada on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Treaty.
Report to be considered. 3. Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs
on the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Amendment Bill
[B 9B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 28 March 2001:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs,
having considered the subject of the Special Investigating Units
and Special Tribunals Amendment Bill [B 9B - 2001] (National
Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to
the Bill.
THURSDAY, 29 MARCH 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces:
Bill passed by National Assembly on 29 March 2001 and transmitted for
concurrence:
(a) South African Weather Service Bill [B 54B - 2000] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
The Bill has been referred to the Select Committee on Land and
Environmental Affairs of the National Council of Provinces.
FRIDAY, 30 MARCH 2001
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Correctional Services:
Report of the Judicial Inspectorate for 2000.
MONDAY, 2 APRIL 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
The proposed policy directions submitted to the Chairperson by the
Acting Minister of Communications in terms of section 5(4)(b)(iii) of
the Telecommunications Act, 1996 (Act No 103 of 1996), have been
referred to the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises for
comment.
TUESDAY, 3 APRIL 2001
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Minister of Public Enterprises on 27 March 2001 submitted a
draft of the Alexkor Limited Amendment Bill as well as the
memorandum explaining the objects of the proposed legislation, to
the Speaker and the Chairperson in terms of Joint Rule 159. The
draft has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Public
Enterprises and the Select Committee on Labour and Public
Enterprises by the Speaker and the Chairperson, respectively, in
accordance with Joint Rule 159 (2).
(2) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 3 April 2001 in terms of
Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bill as a section 75
Bill:
(i) Supreme Court Decree, 1990 (Ciskei) Amendment Bill [B 15 -
2001] (National Assembly - sec 75) - (Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development - National Assembly).
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
relevant committees as mentioned below:
(1) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Transport and the Select Committee on Public Services:
(a) Protocol between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management of The Netherlands concerning Bilateral Cooperation
in the Fields of Transport and Infrastructure Development,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Protocol.
(c) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of the Italian Republic on
Cooperation in the Field of Public Transport, tabled in terms
of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(d) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement.
(e) Declaration of Intent between the Department of Transport
of the Republic of South Africa and the Department of
Transport of Canada concerning Technical Cooperation in
Transportation, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(f) Explanatory Memorandum to the Declaration of Intent.
(2) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Social Development, the Portfolio Committee on Justice and
Constitutional Development, the Portfolio Committee on Health, the
Portfolio Committee on Housing, the Portfolio Committee on
Agriculture and Land Affairs, the Select Committee on Social
Services, the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional
Affairs, the Select Committee on Public Services, the Select
Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs and the Joint
Monitoring Committee on Improvement of Quality of Life and Status
of Women:
(a) Report of the Ministerial Committee on Abuse, Neglect and
Ill-treatment of Older Persons, Volume 1 (Main Report).
(b) Report of the Ministerial Committee on Abuse, Neglect and
Ill-treatment of Older Persons, Volume 2 (Provincial Reports).
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
Bill passed by National Council of Provinces on 3 April 2001: To be
submitted to President of the Republic for assent:
(a) Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Amendment Bill
[B 9B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
Report of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development for
1999-2000 [RP 37-2001].
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Select Committee on Social Services on the Advisory Board on Social Development Bill [B 43B - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 3 April 2001:
The Select Committee on Social Services, having considered the subject of the Advisory Board on Social Development Bill [B 43B - 2000] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.