National Council of Provinces - 28 September 2001
FRIDAY, 28 SEPTEMBER 2001 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 09:46.
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.
LAUNCH OF INANDA HERITAGE ROUTE IN KWAZULU-NATAL
(Draft Resolution)
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes - (a) the launch of the Inanda Heritage Route in KwaZulu-Natal last weekend, incorporating buildings historically linked to Mahatma Gandhi, Dr John Dube, the first president of the ANC, and the Ebuhleni Shembe Church; and
(b) that another important strand to KwaZulu-Natal's attributes as a
tourism destination is added thereby;
(2) acknowledges the great historical impact of Gandhi, who bequeathed to the world a uniquely effective philosophy of satyagraha or passive resistance to racism and injustice;
(3) accords due respect to the contribution of Dr Dube, a visionary who inspired the upliftment of an oppressed people, founding a vernacular newspaper and an educational institution, both of which still exist today;
(4) appreciates the challenge to eurocentric notions of Christianity posed in the Shembe Church;
(5) therefore wishes to underline the importance of cultural and historical tourism which provides elements of fascination to tourists in such records, relics and places; and
(6) welcomes this new dimension to heritage sites in the Republic of South Africa as a whole.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
SOUTH AFRICAN PARLIAMENT'S ROLE AS A TOURIST ATTRACTION
(Draft Resolution)
Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Mev die Voorsitter, ek stel voor sonder kennisgewing:
Dat die Raad - (1) daarvan kennis neem dat parlemente regoor die wêreld groot toerisme- aantrekkingskragte is, hetsy vir buitelandse of binnelandse toeriste;
(2) in die lig van bogenoemde sy kommer uitspreek oor die toerisme- onvriendelikheid van die Suid-Afrikaanse parlementêre kompleks;
(3) aanbevelings vir die opgradering van die geboue, ‘n besoekersontvangslokaal en die vertoon van artefakte wat die geskiedenis van die Parlement uitbeeld, steun;
(4) verder aanbeveel dat daar nie gedraal moet word met die opdrag vir ‘n beeld van oud-president Mandela nie en dat ondersoek ingestel word na die daarstel van skilderye, onder andere van die eerste Kabinet en die voorsittende beamptes van die eerste demokratiese Parlement van Suid-Afrika; en
(5) glo Suid-Afrika verdien ‘n parlement wat ‘n positiewe beeld vir besoekers uitstraal. Ek stel hierdie mosie ook in die lig van Wêreldtoerismedag gister. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.)
[Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Madam Chair, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that parliaments throughout the world are great tourist attractions, whether for foreign or local tourists;
(2) in the light of the above-mentioned, expresses its concern at the tourism-unfriendliness of the South African parliamentary complex;
(3) supports recommendations for the upgrading of the premises, a visitors’ reception hall and the exhibition of artefacts depicting the history of Parliament;
(4) further recommends that there be no further delay as regards the commissioning of a statue of former president Mandela, and that an inquiry be conducted into the production of paintings of, among others, the first Cabinet and presiding officers of the first democratic Parliament of South Africa; and
(5) believes that South Africa deserves a parliament which radiates a positive image to visitors.
I also move this motion in the light of yesterday’s World Tourism Day.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Is there any objection to the motion?
Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Yes, Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! There is an objection. The motion will therefore become notice of a motion.
SHOOTING INCIDENT AT ZUG CANTON PARLIAMENT IN SWITZERLAND
(Draft Resolution)
Dr E A CONROY: Voorsitter, ek stel voor sonder kennisgewing:
Dat die Raad -
(1) sy uiterste skok en afgryse uitspreek met die gebeure gister in Zug, Switserland, toe 14 persone tydens ‘n sitting van die kantonparlement doodgeskiet is;
(2) sy innige meegevoel betuig met die naasbestaandes en vriende van die gestorwenes, en met hul Switserse kollegas wat hierdie traumatiese ondervinding moet deurmaak in ‘n demokratiese raadsaal wat geskep is om die belange van almal in die betrokke gebied te dien; en
(3) ‘n dringende versoek rig tot die instansies wat vir die veiligheid en sekuriteit van ons eie parlementêre kompleks verantwoordelik is om ‘n intensiewe ondersoek te doen na die status van die veiligheidsopset in die Nasionale Vergadering, die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies en die kantoorakkommodasie van parlementslede ten einde ‘n herhaling van die tragedie hier ter plaatse te voorkom. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.)
[Dr E A CONROY: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) expresses its extreme shock and horror at yesterday’s events in Zug, Switzerland, in which 14 people were shot dead during a sitting of the cantonal parliament;
(2) expresses its heartfelt sympathy with the next of kin and friends of the deceased and with its Swiss colleagues who had to suffer this traumatic experience in a democratic assembly that was created to serve the interests of all in the area concerned; and
(3) makes an urgent appeal to those bodies responsible for the safety and security of our own parliamentary complex to launch an extensive investigation into the status of the security set-up in the National Assembly, the National Council of Provinces and the office accommodation of members of Parliament in order to avoid a local recurrence of this tragedy.]
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CULTURAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Mr D M KGWARE: Madam Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed an honour to be afforded this opportunity again to confirm my Government’s commitment to the process of social transformation in our country.
It is rather significant that we have this particular debate in the week that we are celebrating national Heritage Day. This Heritage Day is an important part of what defines us as people and as a country, the starting point of our march towards the better and humane future we desire for all our people. Unless we understand the impact of this heritage ourselves, none of us can correctly answer the question: Who and what am I?
Many among us believe that when we speak of our national heritage we speak only of language, custom, culture and the arts. According to this Bill, national Heritage Day should focus on these areas in all their diversity, recognising the reality that this diversity is but a combination of different colours and materials bound together to form a single field. It is therefore expected that we should pass this day celebrating the very complexity of this cultural event. At the same time, some of us take the opportunity to celebrate particular moments in our history that define who and what we are.
It is against this background that our vision is born to transform the cultural, linguistic, archival and heritage landscape of this country in such a way that the associated institutions reflect the ideals of our new democracy, a vision that says, while museums and other arts, culture and heritage institutions in the past have served the interests of a few citizens of the country, they are now in a position to serve the entire South African population.
This poses a series of challenges. It includes the development of new audiences, the development of human resources, implementing affirmative action policy by grooming new managers across the colour spectrum and mounting existing economic policies that are friendly to indigenous artefacts, indigenous knowledge systems, etc.
It is for this reason that the department has embarked on a transformative programme that culminated in the merger of formerly separated museums. Amendments contained in the Cultural Laws Amendment Bill include technical references to the 1961 constitution, the Senate and the House of Assembly. Thus any Verwoerdian collection in the Act therefore resides in the museums of the apartheid forces.
In addition, the Pan South African Language Board is amended to effect consequential amendments to the section on the appointment of its board. In the Bill the National Archives of SA’s position as a public service is regulated and the National Archives Commission is transformed to create new national archives advisory councils.
In conclusion, it was indeed hard work to effect the amendments to the Cultural Institution Act, the National Heritage Council Act, the Heraldry Act, the Pan South African Language Board Act, the National Archives of South Africa Act, the National Arts Council Act, the National Film and Video Foundation Act and the South African Geographical Names Council Act. However, the legacies of these endeavours are bequeathed to a new nonracial, culturally informed generation.
We need to recognise that the DP and the New NP indicated in the committee that they would not be voting in favour of this Bill and their report is tabled, together with this Bill.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, the New NP objects to this Bill on the following grounds. The portfolio and the select committees failed to include the principle that a member must vacate office if he or she fails to fulfil their duties in terms of the functions of the council. Secondly, the committees failed to accept the principle that councillors should not be paid allowances or receive honoraria, but should only be reimbursed for direct costs. Thirdly, the committees refused to accept that a council should appoint its own chairperson.
However, we are in agreement with many of the amendments, especially the tightening up of the process to appoint members of PanSALB, which enables the Minister to appoint the board through a shortened process, and to appoint fewer councillors, which will financially benefit PanSALB and allow them to spend more money on the duties they are there for, than on mere costs of councillors.
But the question still remains: When will the rest of the board be appointed? Now that the Minister is able to appoint only four additional members, it might just be quicker. I hope that the Minister has an answer for us regarding that.
The inclusion of the NCOP’s select committee in various deliberations on these amendments is the route that many other departments should also take, for this is an equal House of Parliament. In fact, it is the higher House of Parliament. Departments and Ministers should realise this and we, as members, should conduct ourselves accordingly.
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, the DP also cannot accept or support the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill, because whilst a number of amendments are perfectly reasonable …
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Mr Raju, we are considering the Cultural Laws Amendment Bill, not the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill. The subject is the Cultural Laws Amendment Bill. [Laughter.]
Debate concluded.
Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (New National Party and Democratic Party dissenting).
CULTURAL LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon.)
The MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Chairperson and hon members of the NCOP, I am now introducing the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill, which is the section 76 Bill.
The introduction of this Bill is an attempt by my department to further regulate the amalgamation of cultural institutions. The Bill seeks to give the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology similar powers, in respect of the members of councils established by or under the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 and the National Heritage Council Act of 1999, to determine criteria for the allowances payable to and reimbursement of expenses incurred by such members.
The other amendments proposed to the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 are to empower the Minister to declare that a cultural institution must be amalgamated within a flagship institution and to exempt, subject to very strict controls and conditions, a declared institution from the prohibition of selling any specimen collection or other movable property without ministerial approval.
Issues surrounding the financial management and governance of cultural institutions associated with my department have focused a lot of interest in the public area. Much of this interest has, unfortunately, not been positive. Members will recall the difficulties my department has had in the area of performing arts institutions with regard to mismanagement of state financial resources. In all instances, I had to intervene in one way or the other.
It is against, mainly, this background that my department found it necessary to take a new look at the legislation that governs our relationship with all our cultural institutions. We found that despite the fact that the Government funds associated institutions, almost at 100%, it had absolutely no say in how the state’s resources were managed. My department had no legal tool to intervene in instances of even prima facie instances of mismanagement of the state’s resources.
The creation of flagship institutions is very important if we are to have effective utilisation of scarce resources. This is an opportunity for cultural institutions to share skills, finances and other resources. It will now be possible for us to protect the heritage of the country from looting and from the illegal trafficking of our heritage. It will also be possible to use international best practice in the area of heritage management and conservation.
Through flagships, cultural institutions will have business plans, will produce annual reports and have clear programmes of transformation within themselves. The department will be able to measure areas of blockages and see if practices in the institutions are aligned with the overall policy of the Government.
The powers of the Minister to appoint the chairpersons of boards are in line with the Public Finance Management Act. This measure is essential for purposes of accountability and consistency. This legislation puts responsibility upon the Government to put in place measures to ensure that public finances are managed correctly. The appointment of chairpersons by the Minister is a vital tool to ensure that the Minister has tangible means to ensure effective use of state assets.
A clause has also been added requiring associated institutions to submit an annual business plan for the Minister’s approval. This is essential, so that some input can be made by the Ministry in what the organisations are planning for the year and also to promote synergy in policy and budget implementation of Government state-funded institutions.
This amendment is not aimed at diminishing or increasing the powers of institutions, such as the SA Heritage Resources Agency. SAHRA’s rights and obligations are provided for in the Act. The state is bound by the Act and I cannot act in contravention of it.
The Bill can also not change the provisions of existing legislation where the legislation already provides for measures protecting the same object. This may result in duplication of functions and unnecessary expenditure.
Declared cultural institutions are national institutions. The Minister will consult with the affected parties, including structures such as Minmec on the amalgamation of cultural institutions into flagship institutions. I urge hon members, therefore, to support this Bill [Applause.]
Mr D M KGWARE: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, since 1994 great strides have been made to ensure that cultural institutions are in line with the Government’s vision of creating efficient, effective and economically viable citadels. This is exactly what the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill is designed for.
Museums have been and are listed as public entities, hence the demand that they be compelled to conform to the scrutiny of the Public Finance Management Act, as the Minister has already mentioned. We also know that some individual museums are escaping the scrutiny of the Public Finance Management Act, hence the demand for tougher and higher standards of financial reporting and internal auditing. It is therefore not surprising that the department is regarding this citadel as the bedrock of the demands I have referred to. Citadels, if carefully planned, will ensure that there is a culture of corporate governance in this institution. This will present it with the opportunity to infuse their expertise and creativity in the promotion of arts, culture and heritage. It will ensure that the institutions are in a position to utilise their assets, human resource development, marketing, public relations, management research, etc, to their full potential.
The advantage of these measures will be a saving on administrative costs in order to spend more on making museums more accessible to previously disadvantaged communities. It will also assist museums to align themselves with other tourism strategies adopted by Government, thereby supporting the national efforts aimed at the creation of jobs. Both the Cultural Laws Amendment Bill and the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill ensure that these challenges are met. Because these institutions are entrusted with public funds, we had to ensure that they become fully accountable.
More than 85% of the Arts and Culture budget is transferred to our associated institutions to develop and promote arts, culture and the heritage of our country. Therefore, it becomes even more critical that we are able to account for and exercise control over the usage of public funds. It is through sound business principles that we will be able to ensure that the judiciary duties and general financial responsibilities of the institutions are aligned with the Public Finance Management Act. Moreover, these Bills provide an opportunity between associated institutions and the department to jointly plan and evaluate the implementation of policy.
With this, we indicate very fully that the committee also did very well with a Bill that, once more, out of the nine provinces, eight provinces voted for, and only one, that is the Western Cape, voted against.
We support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr J O TLHAGALE: Mr Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, I have been mandated by my province as somebody who has performed the briefings of the standing committee to represent it and to state its position on the proposed legislation.
Cultural issues are close to the people’s hearts and are therefore sensitive. To legislate on them cannot be done without touching the hearts of the people who are connected with them, especially if the management and control thereof were to change to a certain degree.
The purpose of the Bill before the House is to amend the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 and the National Heritage Council Act of 1999. The amendment is the result of an evaluation process of the legislation administered by the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology.
The following significant amendments are made to the two above-mentioned principal Acts. Firstly, according to clause 1, the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare that a declared institution or other institution must be amalgamated with other declared institutions to form a new flagship institution. Secondly, according to clause 2, the Minister may in a particular case or in general exempt a declared institution from selling or alienating any specimen collection or other movable property.
The principal Act is amended to determine that the director of a declared institution serves by right of his or her position and has no voting powers
- clause 3(a). The chief executive officer of a flagship institution serves by right of his or her position and has no voting powers - clause 3(b). In terms of clause 3(c)(b) the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, must determine criteria for the payment of allowances and reimbursement of expenses incurred for services performed by members of a council.
As per clause 5, a member of the council, who is not in the full-time employ of the state, may be be paid allowances and reimbursed for such expenses incurred for services performed by him or her, and the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, must determine criteria for payment of the allowances and reimbursement of such expenses.
In other words, the thrust of this piece of legislation is to empower the Minister to enable the amalgamation of certain declared cultural institutions with flagship institutions. For example, some museums were designated flagship institutions by the department, such as the Bloemfontein-Kimberley flagship, the Nelson Mandela Museum and the Robben Island ferry terminal or museum project.
In conclusion, the proposed legislation was considered by the provincial standing committee on 15 June 2001. The committee agreed to agree with the spirit and essence of the Bill. The North West province, accordingly, supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Ms A ROSSOUW (Western Cape): Hon Chair, hon Minister and members, despite the fact that we are considering amendments to the National Heritage Council Act of 1999, it may be noteworthy to fellow members of the NCOP that the original National Heritage Council Act has never been enacted by the hon national Minister.
It may be necessary to ask the Minister and his department why this is the case. What is more, some 18 months ago the members of the executive committee responsible for culture in all the nine provinces were requested by the hon the Minister to nominate two candidates, each for consideration by himself, to represent the nine provinces on the National Heritage Council.
Despite the willingness of individual South Africans to avail themselves for this task, no further action or acknowledgement seems to have been taken by either the Minister or his department in establishing the proposed National Heritage Council.
Members may be interested to know the objects of the National Heritage Council. They are: to develop, promote and protect the national heritage; to co-ordinate heritage management; to protect, preserve and promote the content and heritage which reside in orature; to integrate living heritage with the functions and activities of the Council and all other heritage authorities and institutions at national, provincial and local level; to promote and protect indigenous knowledge systems; and to intensify support for the promotion of the history and culture of all our people and, particularly, to support research and publication on enslavement in South Africa.
Could the hon the Minister please indicate why the original Act has not yet been implemented and why it is already necessary to amend the Act? The proposed amendments under consideration are the second set of amendments to the National Heritage Council Act of 1999.
The final mandate of the Western Cape legislature was debated on a number of occasions over the past couple of weeks. Careful consideration of the proposed amendments and recent developments, however, made the Western Cape wary of these, and it is for that reason that the Western Cape mandate is a qualified one.
I would like to give some reasons why. The hon the Minister and his department have over the past couple of years been involved in the development of flagship institutions. There are currently two; one established here in Cape Town, known as Iziko Museum of Cape Town, amalgamated a number of declared national cultural institutions, whilst its counterpart in Gauteng, known as the Northern Flagship Institution, was also formed by the coming together of various declared national cultural institutions in Pretoria and Johannesburg.
But in the last couple of years the Minister and his department have mooted the idea of establishing further national flagship institutions, one in KwaZulu-Natal and another in a central part of the country spanning the Free State and the Northern Cape provinces. It is during the discussions and negotiations thus far that some doubts and questions have arisen.
In the Free State and the Northern Cape provinces great unhappiness exists regarding these proposals to not only amalgamate the national declared cultural institutions such as a National Museum, the Oorlogmuseum vir die Boererepublieke, also known as the Anglo-Boer War or South African War Museum in Bloemfontein, and the William Humphrey Art Gallery in Kimberley, but to add to these also provincial affiliated museums such as the McGregor Museum in Kimberley, established and declared in terms of provincial legislation more than eighty years ago.
In KwaZulu-Natal, a proposal was also tabled to create a national flagship institution by amalgamating not only the Natal Museum, the Voortrekker Museum, the art gallery in Pietermaritzburg and the newly developed national museum at Blood River, but also the Durban Museum for local history and its related institutions, which was established by the Durban local authority many years ago.
The most recent proposal by the department is to declare the performing arts companies, that is, section 21 companies established in terms of the Companies Act, or as they are now referred to, ``playhouses’’, as cultural institutions.
Mrs R A NDZANGA: Chairperson, will the hon member take a question?
Ms A ROSSOUW (Western Cape): No. I am not prepared to take questions.
These will include the State Theatre in Pretoria, the Playhouse Theatre in Durban, Sukovs in the Free State and Artscape in Cape Town. One need only refer to the definition of ``institution’’ as set out in the Act to become rather amused and speculative as to the grounds that the Minister will consider in declaring these institutions as cultural institutions, as they are public libraries, museums, zoological gardens or other cultural institutions that he regards to be of kindred character. What is more, all these theatre complexes are owned and maintained by the respective provincial governments. The playhouse companies are tasked to manage these facilities.
Chairperson, it is with these and other recent developments in mind that I must again point out that careful consideration should be given to the proposal made by the Western Cape to the standing committee when the proposed amendments to the Bill were considered and qualifying its final mandate to support this Bill.
Our concern should be seen in the spirit of co-operative governance. All three spheres of government must contribute to the conservation, promotion and development of our collective heritage, but we must carefully consider the legislative and other mechanisms that we institute to fulfil these functions. The Western Cape is unfortunately not in the position to support the Bill. [Interjections.]
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, hon Minister Ngubane, hon special delegates and colleagues, on a personal note, I wish to state it is always nice to see Minister Ngubane in our midst. I have always enjoyed a cordial relationship with the likeable Minister who hails from my province. I have happy memories of our association as former colleagues in the South African Black Alliance. Today I speak on behalf of the DP … [Laughter.] The DP, of course, is a component of another alliance, the DA, of which the Minister is aware.
The Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill states, in its long title, that it intends to amend the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 in a number of ways. Some of these amendments are perfectly reasonable and welcomed by my party. There are certain amendments which the DP cannot accept or support in the wider interests of the South African public.
Section 5 of Act 119 of 1998 deals with a member vacating office. Amendments envisaged to subsection (9) are good from clauses (a) to (f), but clause (g) states that a member must vacate office if:
… on reasonable grounds, the majority of the council so recommends …
Firstly, what do we mean by ``reasonable grounds’’? Secondly, what if the majority of the council gang up or act in concert for the said member’s removal, on extraneous or irrelevant reasons, just because they might not like his face or his or her new hairstyle?
Section 7 of the Cultural Institutions Act of 1998 is amended to provide for the Minister to appoint the chairperson of the council. We say that the council members themselves should be able to elect the chairperson. Ministers should not become patrons of office, nor should beneficiaries who become chairpersons or office bearers feel beholden and obligated to the Minister responsible for their positions.
We feel that if a Minister has the power to make such an appointment, then he compromises the integrity of the person appointed, and the objective execution of duties to be undertaken by such a person inevitably suffers. When council members or his or her peers appoint the chairperson, then no such stigma or aroma of nepotism or favouritism will waft through the corridors.
The DP is unhappy with these amendments and therefore withholds its support for the Bill.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I hope you do not see this as ganging up against the Minister from the DA’s side. I want to start off by thanking the department for many of the amendments they brought to us. I want to thank them for being prepared to assist us, although they did not always get the opportunity to do exactly that. I want to switch to Afrikaans, because I really want to get it off my chest, which is important.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Moet net nie baklei nie. [Just do not fight.]
Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Ek wil ‘n bietjie baklei, want hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp het prosedureel nie goed verloop nie en dit mag nooit weer herhaal word nie. Die status, die rol en die funksionaliteit van hierdie Huis is hier in gedrang.
‘n Wetsontwerp is in wese ‘n voorstel deur ‘n departement van behoeftes wat die departement of Minister sien om hulle werk beter te doen. Dit moet egter deur die verteenwoordigers van grondvlak af, van die provinsies af in hierdie geval, goedgekeur word. Dit moet vervolgens aangepas en dan goedgekeur word as dit moet. Dit is hierdie verteenwoordigers, ons wat hierso sit, wat die besluit namens die provinsies of ons kiesers moet neem.
‘n Departement kan aanbevelings maak of motiverings bied waarom amendemente aanvaar moet word of nie, maar ‘n departement besluit nie namens ons nie.
Ek is egter bevrees dat hierdie wysigings wat verskillende provinsies
voorgestel het, nie die oorweging en beredenering ontvang het wat dit moes
kry nie. Ons het bloot ‘n dokument in ‘n baie laat stadium ontvang, waarop
wysigings aangebring is en ander wysigings wat beskryf is as matters
raised''. Hierdiematters raised’’ is drie wysigings van die Wes-Kaap en
vyf wysigings van Gauteng wat deur die agb Kgoali voorgestel is.
Hierdie wysigings het voorstelle van ons bevat. Die lede van die komitee het nie die geleentheid gekry om dit weer te beredeneer of om die departement se motivering vir die nie-aanvaarding te hoor nie. Ek het die departement baie jammer gekry want hulle het ses mense van Pretoria af gestuur wat gesit het en dit nie kon doen nie. Dit is onaanvaarbaar en mag nie herhaal word nie. Noudat ek my plig gedoen het, kan ek verder gaan en aandui hoekom ons nie hierdie wetsontwerp kan steun nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: I just want to fight a little, because this amendment Bill did not follow procedure and this should never be repeated. The status, the role and the functionality of this House is being jeopardised.
A Bill is basically a motion by a department of the needs which the department or the Minister perceives to enable them to do their work better. This should, however, be approved by the representatives at grass- roots level, from the provinces in this instance. It should consequently be adapted and then approved if necessary. It is these representatives, we who are sitting here, who should take the decision on behalf of the provinces or the electorate.
A department can make recommendations or offer motivations as to why amendments can be accepted or not, but a department does not decide on our behalf. However, I am afraid that these amendments, which were proposed by different provinces, did not receive the necessary consideration and discussion they should have. We merely received a document at a very late stage on which amendments were effected and other amendments which were described as matters raised. These matters raised are three amendments from the Western Cape and five amendments from Gauteng which were proposed by the hon Kgoali.
These amendments contained our proposals. The members of the committee were not afforded the opportunity to discuss it again or to hear the department’s motivation for the non-acceptance. I felt very sorry for the department, because they sent six people from Pretoria who sat and could not do the job. This is unacceptable and should not be repeated. Now that I have done my duty, I can continue and indicate why we cannot support this Bill.]
I am now talking on Ms Kgoali’s behalf, but I see that she is engaged in another meeting.
Clause 1(a) states that the Minister may, by mere notice in the Gazette, declare that a declared institution or any other institution must be amalgamated with the flagship, or as in clause 1(b), be amalgamated with other declared institutions to form a new flagship. This clause interferes with the powers of provincial and local government. This clause ignores the principles of co-operative governance which we debated at length yesterday with the Deputy President.
Consultation and agreement with the provincial MECs, the provincial committees responsible for culture or the local authority are totally ignored and the power vests in the Minister alone. The question is whether this is in line with our Constitution.
We feel very strongly, with the Gauteng province, the Western Cape and I am sure other provinces as well, about clause 7, as mentioned by my colleague over there. This amendment gives the Minister the power to appoint the chairperson of a council which he appointed … [Interjections.]
Ms J L KGOALI: Chairperson, on a point of order …
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon member Kgoali, I did not recognise you. You should indicate to me when you want to raise a point of order. Let us hear what you want to say.
Ms J L KGOALI: Chairperson, I am of the opinion that the hon member is out of order. If Gauteng wants to state its case it will do so.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I hope that this remark will not be deducted from my allocated time.
We suggested that the council members should appoint the chair for the Minister. The Minister appoints the council and, surely, he should have confidence in his council at least to elect their chairperson.
As a matter of fact, the national museum in Bloemfontein, the William Humphreys art gallery in Kimberley, the Natal museum, the Afrikaans language museum, the Council for Jewish Science, the National English Literary museum, the SA Cultural History Museum, the Iziko museums, the Voortrekker Museum and the Pietermaritzburg Natal Arts Council all suggested, in their submissions to the department, that the council should be allowed to appoint their own chairs. But the department ignored all these provinces, political parties and relevant institutions. I really want to know the reason.
Members of the department never got an opportunity to explain this. I hope the Minister will do so. We really cannot support this.
Mr K PANDAY (KwaZulu-Natal): Chairperson, hon Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Dr Ben Ngubane and hon members, when amendments are made to ensure that a department operates smoothly for the betterment of all and, more so in this case, when the amendments are in line with the Public Finance Management Act, no progressive individual should find difficulty in supporting the Bill as amended.
We from the province of KwaZulu-Natal, the kingdom of the Zulus, fully support the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
During the negotiating mandate stage, KwaZulu-Natal proposed a number of amendments and sought some clarification. It was heartening to note that all our concerns were adequately addressed.
With regard to clause 1(b) KwaZulu-Natal suggested that the provisions of section 6(4)(a), (b) and (c) must be applicable to a flagship institution declared under section 3(4). Effectively, the chief executive officer of a flagship institution declared under section 3(4) should be the accounting officer of the flagship institution, should serve a renewable term of five years and must enter into a performance agreement with the relevant council before taking up his or her post of chief executive officer. We record our appreciation to the department for the favourable consideration of this submission.
Clause 3 was also amended after our submission. The KwaZulu-Natal committee in the NCOP sought clarity on the reasons for a different time limit being set in respect of tabling when Parliament is sitting, namely within 14 days of receipt of the report, and when Parliament is not sitting, within seven day of the next sitting of Parliament.
The motivation in the explanatory memorandum appeared to be that similar amendments were proposed in the Cultural Laws Amendment Bill. However, clause 2 of the Cultural Laws Amendment Bill provides that a copy of the report must be tabled in Parliament within 14 days after receipt thereof if Parliament is then sitting or within 14 days after the commencement of the next sitting of Parliament.
We were pleased to note that an amendment was effected, under the proposed
subsection 6 (8) on page 4, line 17, substituting seven days'' with 14
days’’.
Arising out of a submission of KwaZulu-Natal, in clause 8 on page 4, line 42, the words ``as the council may determine’’ were deleted.
KwaZulu-Natal sought clarity in the negotiating mandate stage on the reasons for the change in the status quo. In most pieces of legislation, the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, determines the honoraria and reimbursements for expenses. The committee requested information to ascertain what necessitated the change in favour of providing for the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, to determine broad criteria for the payment whilst the actual determination was left to the council.
In addition, the committee sought clarity on what would be the position if the Minister failed to determine the criteria timeously. We are pleased that this aspect has also been adequately addressed.
In conclusion, we wish to place on record our heartfelt thanks to the hon the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology, Dr B S Ngubane, for the excellent work he is doing to promote culture in this diverse country of ours. The hon the Minister is the greatest asset in South Africa; we must treasure his presence on our soil. Long live the hon the Minister. [Applause.]
Mr R Z NOGUMLA: Chairperson, Minister and hon members, the Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill seeks to make provision for the establishment of alternative institutions in order to ensure optimal and efficient use of limited resources. This has become more urgent, given the fact that some museums have become public companies. In so doing, they now have to subscribe to the demands and requirements of the Public Finance Management Act. As I speak, some of these museums are operating outside the ambit of the Public Finance Management Act, hence the need for higher standards of auditing and financial reporting.
I am tempted to quickly respond to what the hon Van Niekerk said to the House. [Interjections.] Firstly, on behalf of my province, I appreciate the diligent work that has been done by the department. The amending proposals that the member is raising have nothing to do with the attitude of the department. The department did its homework. Those amendments were supposed to have been directed to our provinces. We discussed them in our provinces. We agreed with the amendments that were put forward, and also with those that were accepted on our part by the department.
If the member, or that province, would like our provinces to agree with it, they should have approached us. They should have debated with us, and not accuse the department that they did not accept their amendments. They would not have accepted their amendments if there was no consensus. They only accepted amendments that were agreed upon by the committee.
This Bill also has as its objective the inculcation of a culture of corporate governance in these institutions. This will greatly contribute to the creation and promotion of arts, culture and heritage. It will also ensure that the institutions make maximum use of the resources at their disposal. The spin-offs of this pooling of resources, and the inherent savings, can be utilised for national promotion and awareness initiatives for the benefit of the wider community.
Another important feature of the Bill is that it will encourage the implementation of sound business principles and planning, and ensure that it is aligned with the Public Finance Management Act. Performance management, particularly at the level of CEO, forms part of the critical elements that have been introduced through this Bill. The appointment of boards which bring expertise, knowledge and skills, and people who are regarded as custodians of the arts and cultural heritage, also form an integral part of these amendments.
Such custodianship goes with the responsibility that touches on the integrity of the institution, the integrity in terms of the management of financial affairs of the institutions and the integrity in terms of the constitutional mandate which guarantees cultural rights to all the citizens of the country. These responsibilities cannot be taken lightly, because they are at the core of the democratic principles of our country. If a board’s operations run counter to such principles and its interests are inimical to the bigger interests of the nation, it serves only to derail the huge gains that have been made, and it cannot be entrusted with custodianship.
In conclusion, my province is convinced that the amendments are to the benefit of the public. They are geared to enhancing the performance of the associated institutions. They will improve governance and increase productivity in the heritage sector.
The Eastern Cape supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr D M KGWARE: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon delegates, if one wants to lead, one must first learn to be led. Then one can understand what leadership is.
The other thing is that the question of mind-set in this particular era in which we are living is critical. Hon members need to understand that if other people differ from them in their opinions and views, that does not mean the end of the world. We are dealing here with transformation, and we have to be very objective to accept what is good in front of us. I want to put it very clearly that the department has played a very objective part. They have participated, and I am sure they are careful.
I want to illustrate briefly two issues here. When we met on the negotiating mandate, we agreed that the amendments we had brought about must be sent to the provinces. They have been sent to the provinces. And the provinces have responded by making final mandates, because we are dealing here with a section 76 Bill. It is not a question of Kgware as an individual. It is a matter of the collective from the provinces, and that mandate must be respected.
It was on that position that I had to put my foot down, particularly when some people come with individualism and self-interest to a particular committee. I want to put it very clearly that at that meeting I had to take a stance. I am not a person who is always hard. But if things go wrong, I have to put my foot down to protect the interests of the provinces. That is my duty, and that is what I am paid for.
To Ms Rossouw I want to say that there is an element of transformation. The Western Cape has done what it has done. It has a different view. However, I want to indicate that we are nine provinces. We are sisters. We are nine. We cannot be seen to be living as an island. We need to build together with her so that we move along in this process of transformation, and that will assist the Western Cape in most of the cases. [Interjections.]
To the other hon member I want to say that mandate of the province that the member comes from, the Northern Cape - the same province that I come from - is in support. They have been discussing this, unless we undermine their decision. [Interjections.] But they have sent their mandate in. [Interjections.] So that member cannot be seen to come here and to talk differently from what that member’s province has said. This is what I wanted to indicate - that this is not true. [Interjections.] Certain elements of members have got their own vested interests in this issue. This is not a question of transformation.
I want to say that we have done very well, and the results are very clear. The report is there. Out of nine provinces, we have the support of eight provinces. I must also say that Gauteng has done sterling work in this instance. If one takes the viewpoints that have been provided there, it is quite good. Some of them have been captured very well in this. I liked the suggestion that was put forward that if there are some other issues that have been left out, we still have another few years to transform this country. We will not be able to do it instantly. This, I think, they understood. I do not think we should be involving other provinces if they have a different view on this matter.
I just want to echo my colleagues in that I am prepared to participate in terms of conducting some workshops with them. They might undermine me at this level, but I am capable of conducting a workshop around transformation in particular, so that they understand. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF ARTS, CULTURE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Chairperson, I would like to thank the representatives - the delegates from provinces - and members of the National Council of Provinces who have supported these amendments. I would like to say to the hon Van Niekerk and hon Rossouw that we cannot keep the status quo: 1994 was a defining moment in the history of this country. From the narrow perspectives of previous governments we opened up South Africa to everyone.
The things they are fighting to maintain exclude the majority of people. [Interjections.] The transformation that we have asked for with regard to our cultural institutions has not happened.
Therefore it becomes important that we hold the councils and their chairpersons accountable to the Government priorities of transformation, as the hon Kgware and other members have so eloquently put it. We are not trying to bulldoze anything here, or to take over unnecessary power. We want accountability. Even the Public Finance Management Act demands of us to be accountable.
A chairperson of a board is not an elected official. A council is not an elected group of officials. They are there not only to assist the Ministry and the department but also to co-ordinate with the community. So they should represent community interests. But what have we seen up to now? If one goes to some museums one wonders if they are actually addressing the cultural issues of South Africa. And yet we have been able to be patient with all this. The people of this country have been very patient. But we cannot just test this patience to the limit. We have to respond.
The museums are very important in the education of the children of this country. Are they performing that function? They are very important in bringing together and reconciling cultures, and creating understanding and dialogue. Are they performing that function? If we did a serious audit of the performance of our cultural institutions most of them would come very short.
I do agree that there are good intentions and that the chairpersons of the northern and southern flagships are fully committed to serving all the people of this country, but there are elements within the system that do not understand this type of thinking.
All I am asking is that the councils and the boards share their business plans with us, so that we can always introduce a dimension of a greater good for this country. They may not see it most of the time. They may be very professionally competent but seeing the greater good in whatever we do, at all levels of government, is the objective. That is why the people voted for this Government. We are determined, in a systematic and responsible way, to exact accountability.
We have had very serious experiences of maladministration because we were observing what we called arm’s length, but that arm’s length has been abused. Therefore we need to create greater accountability. We cannot be true to our mandate and to the duties that we owe the people of this country if we do not do this, and these amendments aim at achieving exactly this purpose.
We are not trying to take museums away from local government in Durban. There is no such intention. But we clearly realise that the Voortrekker Museum, the Natal Museum and Ncome Museum must be administered and governed under the one board, so that there is saving of money; there is only one board or one council to oversee work in all of them.
We will provide for honoraria and so on because when we take people from their jobs to perform these tasks there must be something that at least compensates them for the time spent. Those will not be exorbitant amounts. Those will be amounts negotiated with the Minister of Finance. Wherever we give benefits they are always well thought out and well calculated.
The issue of the performing arts institutions is a very serious one. We have lost millions of taxpayers’ money, public money, because of the fact that they were section 21 companies, and there was very little that the Minister could do. The Minister could only request. In fact, I asked Judge Heath, when he was still looking into this issue, whether I could, in fact, just get the money out of the State Theatre. He said to me: ``No, you cannot. You will have to liquidate the company.’’ If that had happened there would be no State Theatre today. We mothballed the State Theatre to enable it to pass through this very difficult phase where huge claims were going to come up against it, and the equipment and all the treasures would disappear. So we have been very responsible all along.
However, we are now bringing all these things under one umbrella in terms of these amendments. We do not want to harm the arts. We will never do that. We will never interfere with the programmes. But certainly the governance and the administration must be an accountable one.
As far as the PanSALB Board is concerned, the process is going on and the standing committees are working on this matter, and I am awaiting their recommendations and have not yet received them. As soon as that process is finalised, there will be a full compliment of the PanSALB.
I think that most of the issues that were raised by members here have been very relevant. The fact that it gives a stigma if the Minister appoints the chairperson is a language that I really do not understand, because we do appoint the council. What is wrong with appointing the chairperson as well? This is done within the sphere of the responsibility of the Minister and Cabinet approves it.
With regard to the fear that we are not consulting, we have Minmecs that meet at least four times a year, and we discuss this with the executives from the provinces. [Interjections.] I would really like to ask our colleagues because I do not like talking party politics. This is a very honourable House, a very allowed place. It represents the people of South Africa and their participation in national legislation very competently. So, I do not expect the types of debates that one could have, probably in the National Assembly, at party-political level.
But nevertheless, I would like to appeal to the DA and its constituent parts to please be constructive. They should just contribute something to the transformation of this country. [Applause.] They should not stand at the margins and simply shout invectives and all that. We are about transformation and confirming and consolidating the reconciliation that former president Mandela started in this country. Let us not, therefore, fret away the huge historical opportunities. [Interjections.] These hon members’ people elected them, but I do not think that they elected them to do this rubbish. [Interjections.] They elected them to contribute to the development of this country so that all of us and our children can live in peace and prosperity. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution (Western Cape dissenting).
NATIONAL HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
Order disposed of without debate.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
The Council adjourned at 10:57 ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs on 28 September
2001 submitted a draft of the Land and Agricultural Development
Bank Bill, 2001, 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 Agriculture and Land Affairs and the Select
Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs by the Speaker and the
Chairperson, respectively, in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).
National Council of Provinces:
- 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 Select Committee on
Finance:
Report and Financial Statements of the National Treasury for 2000-
2001, including the Reports of the Auditor-General on the
Financial Statements of Vote 12 - Finance for 1999-2000, the
Financial Statements of Vote 32 - State Expenditure for 1999-2000
and the Financial Statements of the National Treasury for 2000-
2001 [RP 101-2001].
(2) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Department of
Safety and Security for 2000-2001, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 28 - South
African Police Service and the Secretariat for Safety and
Security for 2000-2001 [RP 129-2001].
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the Department of
Justice and Constitutional Development for 2000-2001,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements of Vote 18 - Justice and Constitutional Development
for 2000-2001 [RP 158-2001].
(3) The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Education and Recreation:
Report and Financial Statements of Sport and Recreation South
Africa for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements of Vote 29 - Sport and Recreation
South Africa for 2000-2001.
(4) The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Economic Affairs:
Report and Financial Statements of the Council for Scientific and
Industrial Research for 2000-2001, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 147-
2001].
(5) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Land and Environmental Affairs for consideration and report:
(a) Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern
African Development Community, tabled in terms of section
231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum on the Revised Protocol.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Education:
(1) Report and Financial Statements of the Certification Council for
Technikon Education for 2000-2001.
(2) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Council for
Educators for 2000.
- The Minister of Safety and Security:
(1) Report and Financial Statements of the Independent Complaints
Directorate for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 149-2001].
(2) Government Notice No 764 published in the Government Gazette No
22583 dated 24 August 2001, Amendment of the South African Police
Service Employment Regulations, 1999, made in terms of section
24(1) of the South African Police Service Act, 1995 (Act No 68 of
1995).