National Assembly - 28 May 2002
TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2002 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:04.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr M A MAPHALALA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That this House -
(1) notes -
(a) the recent song by Mbongeni Ngema stigmatising the Indian
community of KwaZulu-Natal;
(b) the dangerous anti-Indian climate the lyrics of this song could
incite amongst the African population of KwaZulu-Natal; and
(c) the tragic history of anti-Indian pogroms in KwaZulu-Natal in
1949 and 1985; and
(2) calls on -
(a) Mbongeni Ngema to withdraw this song from his recently published
album and to apologise to the nation for the destructive and
racist sentiments promoted in the lyrics of this song; and
(b) urges all radio stations not to give this offensive song any
airtime.
[Applause.] Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall move:
That this House -
(1) supports the view repeatedly expressed by the hon Tony Leon that any person, however senior or junior, and whether a member of the ANC, the DA, the New NP or any other party, must be charged criminally if there is credible evidence of corruption, theft or fraud by that person; and
(2) endorses the call by Idasa and certain sections of the media for Parliament to consider introducing regulations about political funding so that the ANC can no longer receive funds from a selection of dubious sources around the world without disclosing them, and so that the DA leader ceases to be the target of malicious and untruthful smears by political opponents.
[Interjections.] Mr V B NDLOVU: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) is shocked to learn that two farmers have appeared in the Pretoria High Court for allegedly shooting and beating to death Nelson Makhabitshane, who was picking up firewood on a farm;
(2) further regrets that these two farmers are alleged to have chopped off one of the dead man’s legs to make him fit into the shallow grave they had dug;
(3) while acknowledging that collecting wood from a private property might have been illegal, believes that the punishment meted out to the dead man was unproportionate to the act he committed;
(4) believes that such inhumane acts by some farmers provoke farm attacks, and that this vicious cycle deprives our people and the economy of the resources produced by the farming community; and
(5) hopes that the court will find these farmers punishable by law.
[Applause.]
Prof B TUROK: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes the attacks by senior leaders of the DP on Judge Siraj Desai and the judicial commission led by him;
(2) further notes that -
(a) the attacks were made in public by members of this House;
(b) these attacks are an act in contempt of the commission and that
they are an attempt to undermine the integrity of the
Constitution as duly established in accordance with the law; and
(c) in the short history of our new democracy, no sitting judge has
ever been subjected to such levels of disrespect and unwarranted
insults;
(3) believes that the DP, particularly its leader Tony Leon, should unreservedly retract their statement that the Desai commission ``is a kangaroo court’‘;and
(4) calls upon the DP to reassure the South African public of their confidence in the country’s judiciary and to commit themselves to respecting the rule of law.
[Applause.]
Mrs S M CAMERER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes the claim by certain retired generals that an agreement has been reached with the ANC top leadership for the granting of amnesty to members of both sides involved in the struggle against apartheid;
(2) further notes -
(a) the denial by the ANC spokesperson of the correctness of the
claim;
(b) the confused reactions to the claim by various Government
spokespersons; and
(c) the deafening silence from Government leadership on the issue;
(3) accordingly seeks clarification of the present position from the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in whose department applications for amnesty are processed; and
(4) appeals to the President for transparency and fairness in dealing with this politically and emotionally charged issue.
Prof L M MBADI: Madam Speaker, I will move on behalf of the UDM at the next sitting of this House:
That the House -
(1) condemns the unprofessional conduct displayed by some student leaders at the University of the North, specifically the large-scale violence and vandalism which have cost the institution more than R4 million to date;
(2) notes that this unethical action is perpetuated by a wayward clique of SA Student Congress members who are within the SRC and have misled the entire student population in order to pursue their selfish interests and hide their incompetence;
(3) further notes that the Minister of Education has undertaken to act; and
(4) supports appropriate action against vandalism and crime.
[Applause.]
Dr A N LUTHULI: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes reports that the Western Cape anti-poaching operation, Neptune, has confiscated illegally caught crayfish and abalone worth R25 million in nine months;
(2) further notes that the success of Operation Neptune was also made possible by co-operation and tip-offs the police received from the communities; and
(3) commends -
(a) members of the public who have been courageous enough to report
poachers; and
(b) police for acting swiftly in arresting those who are engaged in
illegal poaching. [Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, I will move on behalf of the ACDP at the next sitting of the House:
That the House -
(1) notes that according to figures compiled by SA Tourism for 2001
(a) 4,2 million of the 5,8 million tourists who visit South Africa
annually are from the African continent;
(b) African tourists arriving by air spend R1 143 each per day,
Germans R887, Britons R845 and Australians R574; and
(c) an African tourist's biggest expense is shopping, gifts and
entertainment, whilst other tourists' biggest expense is
accommodation;
(2) further notes that whilst African tourists visit the country for shorter periods than American or British tourists, they return more frequently; and
(3) consequently commends Satour for its successes in marketing South Africa in Africa as a prime tourist destination.
Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, I shall move at the next sitting of the House on behalf of the PAC:
That the House -
(1) notes with horror the uprising at the University of the North, and the shocking destruction of property caused by what appears to be a childish and disproportionate demand for more money for a student party;
(2) calls on the student body to behave with appropriate restraint and decorum and to engage the university officials using the method that university students generally and worldwide are best trained and qualified in, namely discussion and debate;
(3) calls on the university and state security to investigate and publish the report on this situation, particularly the underlying causes of the disturbance; and
(4) demands that any person or persons guilty of this mindless destruction of public and national assets be made to pay appropriate compensation.
[Applause.] Ms X C MAKASI: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) reports that some marriage officers in the Western Cape are
allegedly accepting large sums of money for marrying illegal
aliens to South African citizens so that they can secure work
permits and permanent residence permits; and
(b) that 30 such marriages have taken place in the Western Cape and
are being investigated by the immigration officials; and
(2) calls on the people to expose these corrupt officials and assist law enforcement officers in bringing the culprits to book.
[Applause.] Ms G M BORMAN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:
That this House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the ANC mayor of the Nelson Mandela Metropole, Nceba Faku, has
admitted using his mayoral discretionary fund for personal
expenses, including giving money to his wife, a shebeen owner
and a young township woman;
(b) a council committee has ruled that he must pay back R80 500 to
the public purse; and
(c) the ANC premier and provincial chairperson, Makhenkesi Stofile,
insists that Faku had a right to spend ratepayers' money on his
personal expenses;
(2) questions the ANC’s commitment to clean government and the delivery of services to the people; and
(3) calls on Mayor Faku to stop pilfering the public purse and step down. [Applause.]
Prince N E ZULU: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall move on the next sitting day of Parliament:
That the House -
(1) commends members of the SA Police Service for their swift and gallant action against criminal elements in the Mandeni area on the weekend of 17 May 2002;
(2) extends condolences to the families of the deceased, especially the wife and children of the police officer who died in the course of executing his duties;
(3) encourages other members of the force who survived the brutality of the criminals and calls on the community to assist the police whenever necessary; and
(4) asks the community of Mandeni to remain calm, vigilant and committed to rooting out crime in the area.
Ms M M SOTYU: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) that tensions between India and Pakistan are leading to a threat
of nuclear war between the two countries; and
(b) reports that Pakistan has conducted its second missile test in
two days;
(2) believes that an act of war between the two countries will lead to human rights abuses of unarmed civilians - women and children in particular; and
(3) calls on the political leaders of the two countries to work towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
Mrs M E OLCKERS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes with concern that the National Intelligence Co-ordination Centre has warned the Thai cabinet against alleged South African gangs operating in some of their biggest cities;
(2) notes that the majority of these criminals are, however, Nigerians with fake South African passports;
(3) believes that this should be seen in a very serious light because the consequences of passport corruption are not limited to South Africa but are also damaging to South Africa’s reputation abroad; and
(4) recognises that the Departments of Home Affairs and of Safety and Security have recently clamped down on many syndicates suspected of faking South African passports; and
(5) urges these departments to continue proactive steps to eliminate all forms of corruption relating to the issuing of South African passports.
Ms N C NKABINDE: Madam Speaker, I will move on behalf of the UDM at the next sitting of the House:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) following the tragic train accident that occurred on 25 May in
Mozambique, the country has to provide treatment to more than
300 injured people at the Maputo Central Hospital; and
(b) the Mozambique consulate has provided the UDM with a list of
basic medical supplies that the Maputo Central Hospital requires
to provide proper treatment to those injured in the crash, and
has informed us that the Republic of Mozambique has requested
the Republic of South Africa to assist in this regard; and
(2) calls on the South African Government and all South Africans in the medical sector to extend a hand of compassion to our neighbour in her time of need and suffering by donating these basic and relatively inexpensive medical supplies.
TRAIN ACCIDENT IN MOZAMBIQUE
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes with shock and sadness the horrific train accident in Mozambique which claimed 192 lives and left hundreds severely injured;
(2) mourns with the people of Mozambique and sends its condolences to all who lost loved ones; and
(3) wishes all those injured a speedy recovery.
Agreed to.
AWARD TO ZIMBABWEAN JOURNALIST
(Draft Resolution)
Mr T D LEE: Madam Speaker, I move without notice: That the House -
(1) congratulates the editor of Zimbabwe’s Daily News, Geoff Nyarota, on winning the Golden Pen of Freedom award which is given by the World Association of Newspapers; and
(2) notes that, with this award, Mr Nyarota brings lustre to African journalists and to the African continent.
Agreed to.
CHILD PROTECTION WEEK
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that this week is Child Protection Week;
(2) recalls the saying that “Umntwana Womnye Umntu Ngumntwana Wam. Umntwana Wam Ngumntwana Womnye Umntu” which means that my child is your child and your child is my child;
(3) commits itself to work for the following goals:
(a) to ensure that children are protected from all forms of abuse;
(b) to promote the rights of children to care and compassion in
every household and locality;
(c) to eradicate all forms of discrimination against children;
(d) to promote the rights of children to education, health, food,
shelter and a better environment; and
(e) to ensure that every parent and guardian supports his or her
children properly. [Applause.]
Agreed to.
CAPE TOWN AS TOURIST DESTINATION
(Draft Resolution)
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) a UK survey has shown that Cape Town is the third favourite
overseas city amongst tourists; and
(b) Cape Town has improved its position from seventh place last
year;
(2) congratulates Cape Town Tourism for its efforts to market the city abroad, and all those involved in making the city the exciting and rewarding holiday destination that it is; and
(3) looks forward to seeing Cape Town at the top of the list next year.
Agreed to.
APPROPRIATION BILL
Debate on Vote No 3 - Foreign Affairs:
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, Deputy President, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades and distinguished guests, first let me join those who have conveyed our sympathies to the people of Mozambique on the recent train disaster.
I would like to thank, first of all, the outgoing chair of our portfolio committee, Mr Ebrahim Ebrahim, for his dedicated and committed sterling work that he rendered in the committee. [Applause.] I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the new chair of the portfolio committee, Dr Pallo Jordan, whose leadership brings immense experience to the work of the committee. [Applause.] We all look forward to a close and fruitful working relationship. My gratitude also goes to all the members of our portfolio committee for their hard work, co-operation and understanding, as well as the members of the House.
Foreign policy cannot be conducted without the assistance and co-operation of other departments. Therefore I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to my Cabinet colleagues and their departments for their unwavering support. The co-operation of the Presidency is also deeply appreciated. Lastly, my appreciation goes to the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs, many of whom offered their dedicated services, often under very difficult circumstances and with great personal sacrifice. [Applause.] Let me also take this opportunity to thank my family for the support they give me, even with my gruelling travelling schedule. Our key objective is to achieve a better life for all South Africans and a better world for humanity. Remarkably, Antonio Guerrero had these beautiful words in his book entitled From My Altitude, and I quote: ``You will see the wonder of the world when you give it more love, and the most profound of its splendour when we live in peace’’. Sadly, we are neither seeing the wonder nor the most profound splendour of the world, because we are neither giving more love to the world nor living in peace.
The process of globalisation continues to be characterised by rapid growth in flows of trade, finance, information and technology, which has led to increased interdependence amongst countries. This process has generated unprecedented wealth that has benefited only a few countries, mainly in the developed world, and a few people in developing countries, whilst marginalising many. This leads to the ever widening gap between the rich North and the poor South, as well as the gap within countries. In its trail, globalisation has left African countries in increased poverty and underdevelopment, exacerbated by the declining official development assistance, aid and foreign direct investment. It is estimated that Africa’s share of global trade continued to shrink from 3,1% to 0,7% during the last three years. Because this is coupled with the perennial and inescapable debt trap, African countries are net exporters of capital to the West, thus depriving their countries of essential services such as health, education and infrastructure development.
This means that millions of people are hungry and angry. There are increasing millions of young people who feel hopeless and desperate. This scenario poses a serious threat to the stability and security, not only of the poor, but also of the rich. There is no doubt that with the abundance of wealth that has been generated, poverty can be eradicated, hope can be restored and, indeed, we can begin to see the real wonders of the world. There are more than enough resources to address the issues of poverty, but what is needed is not more resources, but political will on the part of those who control the resources.
Our common humanity should not allow any of us to be content when the rest of humanity is living in conditions of squalor and abject poverty. We should realise that the interdependence of nations and peoples in the global village means that we are like a ship at sea with the upper deck passengers living in opulence and the lower deck living in conditions of hunger and disease. Those on the lower deck may all aspire to climb onto the upper deck, which might compromise the stability of the ship or they might decide that life is better at the bottom of the sea and therefore decide to sink the ship, and we will all perish, rich or poor. We should avoid this.
The antiglobalisation movement, though at times they resort to methods that are unacceptable, serves as a wake-up call that those who are marginalised in the lower deck are getting impatient and restless and we need to listen to them.
September 11 was a terrible tragedy. It illustrates that we are not living in peace, and therefore, instead of seeing the most profound splendour of the world, we see the most gruesome aspect of it. The fight against terrorism everywhere in the world is critical. It will be defeated in a global coalition of states under the United Nations, which is the agent of our collective security.
The situation in the Middle East demands the world’s urgent attention. Whilst accepting and recognising the state of Israel, we must address the right of Palestinians to live in their own sovereign state. We must make them understand that they have a common destiny and that Israel’s security is linked to the security of the Palestinians and vice versa. We need to build and encourage a peace movement that will eventually put a stop to the flowing of the blood of innocent people. The rising tension in Kashmir and the looming danger of war between India and Pakistan is a grave cause for concern. We call for maximum restraint.
The South African Government wishes to congratulate the people of East Timor and their movement, Fretelin, on finally achieving their right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent state. [Applause.] We appreciate the role played by the United Nations in shouldering its responsibility with regard to the people of East Timor. We shall continue to fight for the transformation and democratisation of the multilateral institutions, especially the UN Security Council and the Bretton Woods institutions.
As chair of the Nonaligned Movement, South Africa has worked hard to strengthen dialogue with the developed countries on issues of common interest, and they have worked ceaselessly for multilateralism. At the recently concluded ministerial meeting of the Nonaligned Movement in Durban, we agreed to reposition the movement in order to take advantage of new realities of our times. For now, South Africa will continue to Chair NAM until February 2003. I am pleased to inform the House that Malaysia will take over as chair of the movement next year after the summit in Malaysia. [Applause.] We are very alarmed because of the emerging and fast-growing right-wing trend in the developed world that is manifested through xenophobia, Islamophobia and racist policies. Thus our hosting of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to stem the tide of racism was correct. It is our hope that the international community will implement without delay the programme adopted at the aforesaid conference to push back the frontiers of racism. The final document is ready and has been accepted by the United Nations.
We must respond candidly to the question: What are we doing to ensure that peace prevails in the world and that we can begin to give more love so that the future generations can indeed see the wonder of the world and its most profound splendour?
The African countries have taken steps to address this challenge as well as the changed and changing international political environment and the marginalisation of Africa. At the heart of the continental efforts is the need to position our continent structurally so as to face the new challenges and to take advantage of the opportunities of the changing international, political and economic environment, and to prevent the further marginalisation of our continent.
The African leaders have taken a decision to transform the OAU into the AU. It must be recalled that the OAU was founded on the basis of promoting the unity and solidarity of the peoples of Africa so that their welfare and wellbeing could be assured. Another important principle was to ensure absolute dedication to the total emancipation of the African territories which were still under colonial domination.
Those of us who have suffered under the yoke of apartheid and colonialism know only too well the solidarity and support of the OAU and the African countries against mighty forces in the world. We will forever be indebted to the continent’s organisation and its people who sacrificed for our liberation. The decolonisation of the continent is complete except for one country, and thus we can say that the OAU has heroically fulfilled its mandate.
The realisation of a United Africa, which is politically, economically and socially strong, has taken a new meaning with the forthcoming launch of the AU in South Africa in July this year. The African Union which is emerging will, amongst other things, not tolerate genocide similar to that which was visited upon the people of Rwanda, will deprive of any legitimacy those who usurp power through the force of arms, will unleash the energy of African women, who for years have been treated as beasts of burden with wood on their heads, water in their hands and children on their backs.
Through its Nepad programme it will respond to the socioeconomic development of the continent, thereby starting a process of the eradication of poverty and achieving prosperity for African people. It will uphold good political and economic governance, democracy, peace and stability, and will observe human rights.
At the launch of the AU the assembly of the AU, the executive council and the permanent representatives’ forum will be established. The current OAU secretariat will become the interim secretariat of the AU whilst the commission is being established. We hope that the summit will also adopt the protocol on peace and security, which will replace the central organ of the OAU. The Pan African Parliament will be launched as soon as enough countries have ratified the protocol. Organs such as the criminal court, African monetary fund, African investment bank and African central bank will be established later.
The ANC, which has been part of the continental struggles, is also celebrating its 90th anniversary as the AU is being established. As a movement, we have always maintained that the pain and joys of this great continent are inescapably ours. We are therefore pleased that the dream of our founders, of a united, peaceful and prosperous Africa, is within reach. I suppose we can take this opportunity to also congratulate this glorious organisation. The AU must be indeed the stronger union that Kwame Nkrumah spoke so eloquently about on 7 January 1961, and I quote:
If we do not formulate plans for unity and take steps to form a political union, we will soon be fighting and warring among ourselves.
The incontrovertible truth is that poverty, underdevelopments and marginalisation of the African continent are the harbingers for instability and insecurity, which often lead to conflict. As a response to this, African leaders have crafted a visionary and sustainable programme that holds real prospects for lifting the continent from the abyss of conflict, poverty and underdevelopment, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, Nepad. Nepad is truly African in character, initiative and ownership and is designed to meet the legitimate aspirations of the African people. It is the continent’s instrument to advance people-centered development based on democratic values and principles.
As Africans we have already taken steps to lay the basis for our own development in partnerships such as the Telkom optic-fibre cables that are being laid in the Atlantic Ocean covering West Africa to connect these countries to Europe, as well as in the Indian Ocean to connect countries in East Africa to Asia.
Inevitably, Nepad has brought about a fundamental paradigm shift in the restructuring of the continent’s patterns of interaction with the industrialised North. It is important to emphasise that Nepad is about genuine partnership instead of paternalism.
The Nepad agenda, as informed by the development targets agreed at the UN Millennium Assembly on poverty eradication and underdevelopment, has found resonance in the new development round of global trade negotiations in the WTO.
It was also accepted as the basis of engaging with the continent at the recently concluded Financing for Development conference. At the forthcoming G8 meeting in Canada, the African leaders will present concrete programmes on issues such as trade, investment, agriculture, energy, transport, human resources development, information and communications technology, etc. The G8 will be expected to provide its response and we expect to reach agreement on concrete follow-up actions.
For the success of Nepad, we will also need to build partnerships with countries of the South in the true spirit of our solidarity.
The African century will only be attained if women play a critical and catalytic role in fashioning and implementing both the AU and Nepad. Undoubtedly, women constitute the critical mass in Africa and, unless they are harnessed and mobilised into this mighty army of Africa’s renewal, no palpable progress will be achieved. Our private sector and civil society also have a cardinal and principal responsibility of ensuring that this programme succeeds.
Two days ago we returned from the small island of the Grand Comoros to witness the swearing in of the first president of the Union of the Comoros. This follows conflict occasioned by the secession of the island of Anjoun, which was followed by the unconstitutional takeover of government by the army. The people of the Comoros, with the assistance of countries of the region, have restored both their territorial integrity and democratic rule, and we would like to congratulate them on that.
The culture of peace, stability and good governance has firmly taken root in the continent, as evidenced by more than 40 countries undergoing multiparty elections recently. Developments such as peaceful elections in Mali, Sierra Leone and Lesotho recently confirm this trend. The day after tomorrow, Algeria will hold its parliamentary elections. We wish them well.
South Africa warmly welcomes the signing of a cease-fire agreement between the Angolan government and Unita, which will hopefully bring lasting peace and stability to Angola. South Africa stands ready to assist the people of Angola in their efforts to rehabilitate, reconstruct and develop their country. The Angolans, who have had to endure pain and suffering for more than 27 years, deserve a permanent peace. Those of us who have benefited from their generosity during the difficult days can only wish them well on this road.
The recently concluded inter-Congolese dialogue at Sun City provides the necessary impetus for the inclusive process towards peace and stability. Only an all-inclusive agreement that will lead to the reunification of the Congo and the transition to democracy will create sustainable peace and spare the people of the Congo the hardships of war.
Let us take this opportunity to thank the facilitator of the inter- Congolese dialogue, His Excellency President Masire, for his untiring role. We also congratulate the Congolese people on the progress made so far, and urge them to continue to work to find the lasting solutions.
South Africa cannot and will not walk away from the Congo. We will remain true to the prophetic words of Patrice Lumumba during his final days, when, writing to his wife a few days before he died, he said:
We are not alone. Africa, Asia, and the free and liberated people of the globe will remain at the side of the millions of Congolese who will not abandon their struggle. I want my children, whom I leave behind and perhaps will never see again, to be told that the future of the Congo is beautiful and their country expects them, as it expects every Congolese, to fulfil the sacred task of rebuilding our independence, our sovereignty.
The words of this great African were relevant then and are still relevant today.
South Africa, together with Nigeria, is still working with Zimbabwe. I think it is important that South Africa should remain engaged with Zimbabwe to work towards reconciliation of the adversaries in Zimbabwe. We should work towards bringing the Zimbabweans back from the brink. We should not be the ones that push them to the precipice.
At this stage, we would like to congratulate the people of Lesotho on holding peaceful elections. Economic development will further strengthen democracy in Lesotho. In this respect, we must continue to work with Lesotho within the framework of our joint co-operation.
We also would like to congratulate the new transitional government in Burundi and thank the facilitators, President Bongo and our Deputy President, for all the work they are doing to try and bring peace to that country. We also would like to thank the South African Protection Service Detachment that has contributed significantly to the peacemaking process in Burundi.
I do hope that everyone who means well for the continent will support Nepad. Failure to do so would mean that we are against debt relief, poverty eradication, investment in health, education and infrastructure, human resources development, market access, FDIs and ODA, and all that Nepad stands for.
South Africa views the Southern African Development Community as one of the building blocks of the AU and therefore is putting a lot of effort into the restructuring and reforms of the SADC.
With regard to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, we are proud to host the largest international conference ever, with approximately 65 000 people expected. The Johannesburg summit will be preceded by the ministerial preparatory meeting in Bali.
The three broad themes of the Johannesburg summit reflect the essential prerequisites for moving towards sustainable development, namely alleviating poverty and promoting sustainable livelihoods, realising sustainable consumption and production, and protecting the integrity of life-supporting ecosystems.
At the bilateral level, South Africa will continue to engage in the following: US African Growth and Opportunity Act or AGOA; the implementation of the South African EU Trade Development Co-operation Agreement; the TICAD agreement and process; the Sino Africa Forum; the Commonwealth; improvement of relations with the Gulf states; increasing our co-operation with the Russian Federation, especially on science and technology; continuing the negotiations with Mercusor on free trade agreement; deepening our economic relations with East European countries; working with strategic countries such as Japan, India, Brazil, Mexico and others; and working to deepen bonds of friendship and understanding with the countries of West and East Africa by establishing, in the meantime, honorary consuls where we do not have missions as yet, while establishing joint binational commissions is a challenge for the future.
While our foreign policy has clearly prioritised Africa and the South, we are a long way from translating and expressing these priorities in structures, our budgets and in the development of human resources due to budgetary constraints. We still do not have missions in a vast number of countries, especially in Central and West Africa, and even people who wish to visit South Africa first have to travel to other countries to get their visas.
During 2001 the department made commendable strides. Representivity in our missions and among our senior managers has improved dramatically. Although we have made significant progress in promoting women and the disabled, much work still needs to be done.
During the past year the department undertook an assessment of its capacity needs. The analysis indicated that the department is significantly underresourced and inadequately capacitated, with major capacity gaps in the areas of staffing, information technology and human resource development.
The department needs to increase its staff component by at least 30% in order to meet all the challenges that are facing us. We are going to be improving and updating our ICT to adequately acceptable levels, because some of our technology was acquired in early 80s. During this year the department will be facilitating interventions, both task and people related, aimed at inculcating a culture of service and performance. Mechanisms are being put in place to ensure capacity for early detection of performance problems and capacity to deal effectively with them.
On the issue of taxation, the unintended consequences of the law have had a demoralising effect on our diplomats, owing to the uncertainty around the 40% taxation, which cuts their income abroad by 40%. We are trying to resolve this matter. In the meantime, we have resolved to suspend the deductions which were to be effected at the end of this month, until such time as we have found a long-lasting solution to this matter, even if it means amending the Act regulating the taxation of allowances of our officials. We hope we can count on members’ support in the event that this matter is brought before the House. Only 18% of the department’s budget is dedicated to operational costs. The department’s responsibilities include many unanticipated responsibilities which arise in an ever-changing world and which have to be discharged despite financial constraints.
In conclusion, the constraints imposed by the budget allocation on the department may impact negatively on the successful implementation of these programmes. But, generally, it is my view that we have done reasonably well despite the major budgetary constraints, and in this context I would like to take the opportunity to thank the IRPS Cabinet cluster.
These, therefore, are the major challenges facing all of us as a department, Government, country and continent, in order to make the 21st century an African century. Therefore, every one of us should view him or herself as a soldier of the irreversible march for the African Renaissance.
If we all act in that way, we can indeed see the wonders of the world and the most profound of its splendour. I want to close by quoting one of the African sons, Sekou Toure, and we must all take his words to heart:
In order to achieve real action you must yourself be a living part of Africa and her thoughts; you must be an element of that popular energy which is entirely called forth for freeing the progress and the happiness of Africa.
We hope we can count on all hon members to be the elements of that popular energy for the progress and the happiness of Africa, who will give the wonder and live in splendour of peace. [Applause.]
Mr E I EBRAHIM: Madam Speaker, the Deputy President, hon members and distinguished guests, today is my last address to members after six years serving as chair of this Assembly’s Foreign Affairs committee.
This year’s Foreign Affairs budget debate takes place at an historic junction for our nation and our continent. This is an opportune moment for us to reflect on the road we have travelled and the course we have charted for the future.
Today we stand on the threshold of a new political dispensation, a Pan African programme that will project us in a new way to the international community. We are ushering in a new season, a season in which countries of the South mould and influence the discourse of international relations. It is our unity of purpose, coupled with the strength of our agenda, which has placed Africa at the centre of the G8 deliberations this June.
The centrality of African issues to the G8 agenda is unprecedented, featuring even higher on the agenda than terrorism. The impending inauguration of the African Union and its programme Nepad has established a framework that will guide Africa’s revitalisation and its relations with the world.
Our African project comes at a time of shifting paradigms in international relations. The status quo was profoundly altered by the attack on the United States last year. Today the world itself is not a very different place from what it was a year ago, but the difference lies in the way in which power is being wielded. While a few nations have prevailed since the Second World War as the guardians of international peace and security, the trend has shifted to a growing unilateralism by the remaining superpower.
This process is supposedly legitimised under the pretence of multilateralism, the global coalition, in pursuing a strategy of unchecked militarism outside the parameters of the United Nations. This military adventurism is reminiscent of the Gulf War of 1991, but what is different a decade later is that there has been a fundamental paradigm shift in American foreign policy. Policies are formulated through the prism of the war on terrorism, with implications for United States bilateral relations across the globe. Erstwhile enemies have turned into allies, and this is at the expense of the democratic principles that were once the cornerstone of US foreign policy.
This is inherently destabilising for long-term international peace and security, as Western universalism is increasingly perceived as imperialism.
The West defines its interest as the interest of the world community, integrating non-Western societies into a global economic system that it dominates. This universalism has led to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards from the non-Western world. Democracy is promoted, but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power. Nonproliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq, but not for Israel. Free trade is the key to economic growth, but not for agriculture. Human rights are an issue with China, but not with Pakistan. Those nations that do not fit into the Western paradigm are relegated to the status of comprising the axis of evil. Western countries have promoted what they consider to be the universal feature of one civilisation. For cultural coexistence in the global community, we need an acceptance of diversity and a renunciation of universalism. President Khatami of Iran has repeatedly called for a dialogue amongst civilisations as a paradigm for peace.
A by-product of the September 11 attacks and the war on terrorism has been the rise of Islamophobia as a global phenomenon. Segments of the international media have equated Islam with violent fundamentalism. This has had an unfortunate resonance in some communities.
South Africa recognises that fundamentalist elements exist in every religion. It was, after all, a fundamentalist Jew who killed Israeli Prime Minister Rabin for the mere fact that he sought peace with the Palestinians. It is the Hindu fundamentalists in India who have propagated religious intolerance, turning their backs on the teachings of the great Mahatma Gandhi. The Christian Crusaders also carried out massacres in their time.
President George Bush has repeatedly warned against Islamophobia, and what is now needed is an intercivilisational dialogue. South Africa has echoed calls for dialogue, rejecting the militarist approach. For us it is clear that conflict between and within states can only be resolved through peaceful dialogue and negotiations. The South African Government and our Parliament unreservedly condemned the terror attacks on the United States. There can never be justification for such acts.
But we also believe that, to combat terrorism, we need to address the underlying root causes and eradicate the scourge of poverty and marginalisation. These are the principles upon which Nepad is based. Prosperity on our continent will only be achieved once those on the margins of society are uplifted and integrated into the mainstream.
Integral to social upliftment must be the strengthening of the peace process on the continent. Africa can most effectively achieve results through multilateral initiatives as opposed to unilateralism. It is here that South Africa deviates from the trend of the emerging world order.
Our principled approach is laudable, but lacks the necessary clout that accompanies permanent positions in multilateral bodies such as the United Nations Security Council. It is the challenge of our times to ensure that these structures are reformed, enabling a space for alternative voices to influence decision-making. This institution is comprised of the victors of the Second World War and is shaped according to the power balance existing in 1945. This bears a decreasing relationship to the reality of the power in the world. If changes are not made to the leadership of the United Nations Security Council, other forums may develop to deal with security issues.
Already, important security decisions have been diverted from the ambit of the United Nations to Nato. Africa and the developing South risk further marginalisation in this process. We must push for its reversal. South Africa has veered away from the missile diplomacy of the North in our pursuit for peace and stability on the continent. The African approach is that peace is more than the absence of violence or the containment of conflict, but about people-driven policies and processes. Human security is the leitmotiv underpinning the peace and security initiative of Nepad and the peace and security council of the African Union. There can be no peace without development and no development without peace.
The AU will have revolutionary implications for maintaining peace and security on the continent. It will have the powers to intervene in the internal affairs of member states, a provision prevented by the OAU. Military intervention may be sanctioned in the case of war crimes, genocide and humanitarian emergencies and to restore peace and security. This represents a significant break from the past. This will put an end to the phenomenon of intransigent government hiding behind the concept of sovereignty. If the political will exists, enforce it. Funding is the issue that threatens the African Union. The OAU incurred expenses 10 times the amount of contributions from the member states last year. We must ensure that the necessary funding is found to operationalise African solutions to African problems. In South Africa we are primarily concerned with bringing about peaceful resolutions to the wars that plague our continent. The DRC, Burundi, Sudan and Zimbabwe are our priorities.
We are also concerned with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the Middle East. This protracted conflict constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. We cannot remain silent in the face of the suffering of the Palestinian people. South Africa has condemned the continuing attack on the Palestinian authority by the state of Israel. These attacks are orchestrated with a view to ultimate destruction. The siege and massacre of innocent Palestinians and the refusal of Israel to permit a UN fact-finding mission clearly expose the moral bankruptcy of the Israeli state. The Palestinians have suffered far too long the injustices of military occupation, torture and the destruction of property. The killing of civilians, the forced displacement and the refusal of access to basic resources such as water are unacceptable.
Western nations have done little to end the Israeli military occupation or support the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people for self- determination. Fundamental to the resolution of the conflict is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. South Africa fully supports the proposal of Saudi Prince Abdullah that Israel should withdraw from all the territories occupied in 1967 and that there should be a return to a complete normalisation of relations with Israel.
As we have done on the continent, South Africa has engaged in peace- building efforts. The Spier retreat was a valuable initiative to share the South African experience in negotiation and transition. We will always reiterate that conflicts cannot be resolved through violence. Political solutions and not military solutions will bring about lasting stability. In closing, I would like to congratulate Dr Pallo Jordan on his election as the new chair of the Foreign Affairs committee. I would like to thank all members of the portfolio committee for their co-operation and congratulate my colleagues on the unprecedented level of consensus that we have managed to achieve on potentially divisive issues. I want to thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and the acting DG, Mr Minty, and the liaison officer of the department for all their assistance to the committee. Special mention goes to my personal assistant, Juanita Hendrickse, for her absolute commitment to the work of the committee and her effectiveness in managing a hectic agenda.
It is with a sense of sadness and yet achievement that I leave all here today. It has been a tremendous honour to serve as a member of this Parliament from the inception of our first democratically elected government. We have made great strides in the transformation of this country and the struggle for greater, global equity for the people of the South. Our conduct as a nation in foreign affairs has led others to defer to our leadership and moral authority, for which our Ministers and President should be congratulated. Most importantly, we have always devised our own policy with the best interests of ordinary South Africans and the sons and daughters of Africa in mind. We must continue to strive for Africa’s complete economic and political emancipation and a just and peaceful world order. [Applause.]
Mr C W EGLIN: Madam Speaker, at the outset I should also like to place on record my appreciation and that of my DP colleagues to the hon Ebrahim Ebrahim for the thoughtful, efficient and even-handed manner in which he discharged his responsibility as chairman of the portfolio committee. We thank Ebrahim and we wish him well in his new appointment in the office of the Deputy President. [Applause.]
Allow me also to welcome our new chairperson, the hon Pallo Jordan. We look forward to working with him and we hope that he will use his undoubted talents to steer the portfolio committee in the direction that is most proactive and constructive.
A recent study visit by members of the committee to the department in Pretoria was of great value in adding to the understanding that members had of the scope of the work being undertaken by the personnel of the department and of the conditions under which they work, their objectives, their achievements and their problems.
For me there were two dominant impressions. The first was the vast scope of the work being undertaken by the department. The department’s responsibilities have expanded enormously. Our missions abroad have increased to 93. We are directly involved in a growing number of multilateral, regional and global organisations, treaties and conventions. South Africa has accepted some additional responsibilities: constitutional resolution in the DRC, conflict resolution in Burundi and elsewhere, hosting international conferences, interacting with the G8 and promoting Nepad. No doubt South Africa has become a significant role-player and interlocutor, both in South-South and in North-South relations.
My second impression was the dedication of the personnel of the department and their commitment in striving to meet departmental objectives while working under pressures of all kinds. I believe that the personnel of the department deserve the profound gratitude of this House.
There is much in the functioning of the department that is commendable. However, there are problems that should not be glossed over, and dominating these is the shortage of funds. In my opinion, in the light of its growing responsibilities, the department’s budget is grossly inadequate. In this year’s Estimates, the Treasury acknowledges the vast increase in DFA responsibilities, yet this increase is not reflected in the funds made available to it. Apart from the provision that has been made since last year for currency depreciation and for the foreign service dispensation based on the Kluever report, the effective annual increase of the budget since 1999 has been less than 5% and, in terms of the MTEF, it is to be pegged at an average of 2,2% for the next three years. Indeed, operational expenditure has declined since 1997 from R900 million to R600 million in the year 2002.
The Government has three alternatives: to increase the budget allowances of the department in line with its increased responsibilities; to scale back South Africa’s involvement in obligations in relation to international affairs; or else simply to do nothing and watch a steady decline in the morale and effectiveness of the DFA.
In spite of the commitment of the personnel of the department, there is no doubt that morale is low. There are a number of reasons for this: working under continuous pressure; a decline in job satisfaction through not being able to achieve objectives due to the shortage of resources; and financial uncertainty as a result of the Government’s policy decision to tax foreign allowances.
But the factors overriding this, in my opinion, lie in the field of corporate governance of the department. What are some of the facts relating to this corporate management problem? Firstly, the portfolio committee was shocked to find that most of the senior management of the department occupy their posts on an acting basis, and many of these people have been acting for some time.
This is no way to ensure efficient management. It is bad for the persons who are required to act to carry out their duties on an acting basis, and it creates uncertainty amongst the personnel who are working under their authority. Imagine the Cabinet functioning with 24 out of its 27 members being Cabinet Ministers on an acting basis! What would hon Minister Asmal think of it? There he is.
Secondly, the changes of the top management position of director general have been too frequent - there has been Rusty Evans, who caretakered the transition; Pik Botha; Alfred Nzo; Jackie Selebi; who was whisked away to become Commissioner of Police; Sipho Pityana, who came from the Department of Labour and resigned for undisclosed reasons two years after taking up his appointment.
In addition, the post of DG has been been vacant for more than six months, while the knowledgeable, hard-working Abdul Minty has had to carry on the DG’s responsibilities on an acting basis. Can one imagine any big corporation in South Africa keeping the post of chief executive officer open for more than six months?
Thirdly, there is uncertainty about the future structure of the department because of the financial stringency. Finally, the Minister’s head of the department is being drawn more and more into the orbit of the presidency, the very nature of her work, and is constantly becoming less and less closely linked with the DFA and the personnel. In addition, the personnel of the department are having to adjust to the reality that they have less and less say in the formulation of policies that they are required to administer.
Under the impact of globalisation, the nature of governance and the extent of Government responsibility are changing. Our economy is developing in the global arena. Increasing factors beyond our borders are having a bearing on the future of our country and the wellbeing of our people. Like it or not, South Africa’s regional and global responsibilities are going to increase.
The Government owes it to the people of South Africa to ensure that there is a Department of Foreign Affairs that is resourced, managed and directed in a way that it is able to discharge its responsibilities as South Africa’s main agent and facilitator in the international field.
The Government stands before a tremendous challenge when in July the African Union will be inaugurated, with President Mbeki as its first chairperson. South Africa will have the critically important task of guiding the AU through its first formative year, when the foundation of its procedures and policies will be laid.
The year ahead is also going to be critical for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development - Nepad. If Nepad gets off on the wrong foot under the AU, the hopes for African development will be set back. On the other hand, if Nepad gets off to a good start the dream of the African Renaissance might start becoming a reality.
In my opinion, Nepad is certainly one of the most promising concepts to come from Africa. Indeed, there is something uplifting in its substance and moving in its formulation, and I quote:
The New Partnership for Africa’s Development is a pledge by African leaders, based on a common vision and a firm and shared conviction, that they have a pressing duty to eradicate poverty and to place their countries, both individually and collectively, on a path of sustainable growth and development, and at the same time to participate actively in the world economy and body politic. The programme is anchored on the determination of Africans to extricate themselves and the continent from the malaise of underdevelopment and exclusion in a globalising world.
Through this programme, African leaders are setting an agenda for the renewal of this continent … Across the continent, Africans declare that we will no longer allow ourselves to be conditioned by circumstance. We will determine our own destiny and call on the rest of the world to complement our efforts.
Regrettably, too many people in Africa, including people in leadership positions, are poorly informed about Nepad. Wrongly, many see Nepad primarily as a partnership between Africa and the developed world. Partnerships of various kinds emerging between Africa and the developed world, in response to Nepad, are important to the success of Nepad.
However, we in Africa must constantly keep before us the fact that the primary partnership, the bedrock on which Nepad is founded, is not the partnership that will materialise with the North but that it will be the partnership, here in Africa, between the leaders and governments of our continent. Success for Nepad will depend on, more than anything else, the success of the African partnership.
I have to cut my speech short but let me say this. A Government spokesman recently said the following - and I quote Deputy Minister Pahad when he talked about Zimbabwe:
We strongly disagree with the threats that there should be collective punishment against all in Africa because of the developments in one country.
We understand this line of thinking but, equally, the Government must understand that when a partnership is based on collective commitment to uphold certain core values, each time the government of a country fails to uphold or wilfully violates those core values, the value of the partnership is diminished and the benefits that flow to all partners are reduced. More than this, should the leaders fail in their collective commitment to take steps to see to it that the core values are abided by, Nepad will be undermined. Finally, Presidents Obasanjo and Mbeki were faced with a tough decision when they served on the three-person committee that suspended the Mugabe government from the Commonwealth. There is no doubt that African leaders are going to be faced with tough decisions in the future. We expect them to act in the knowledge that what is at stake is not the reputation of a defaulting government or the ego of a power-hungry president, but the success of Nepad and the development of our continent. [Applause.]
Ms F HAJAIG: Madam Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, directors-general, officials, comrades and colleagues, 1 June is International Children’s Day. I wish to dedicate this input to the hungry, homeless and abused children of the world who can, if we make it so, be the hopes and shining stars of tomorrow.
I would like to, first of all, thank the outgoing chairperson of our committee, Ebrahim, for his sterling work in the committee and I would also like to welcome Dr Jordan into our committee. I support the Budget Vote of Foreign Affairs for this financial year. The amount voted for is just over R2 billion. With the ever-increasing extent of its work and currency fluctuation, the department is finding it increasingly difficult to work effectively within the constraints of this budget. We need to relook at this issue. We would, however, like to thank the department for the hard work that is being done which we observed when we visited the department in Pretoria.
In this debate, I would like to elaborate on the sustainable development calabash of the department’s strategy document. This document aims to promote sustainable growth and development through trade and investment; maximise South Africa’s competitive edge in the global economy through integration and co-operation among and between African, regional and continental bodies; and promote equity among the world’s nations through multilateral co-operation with continental and global organisations that have a bearing on African development.
Underlying all of this is the eradication of poverty. Just as we, in the ANC, want a better life for all in South Africa, so do we want a better life for all the people of Africa and all the developing nations of the world. The UN summit on sustainable development will take place in Johannesburg between August and September this year. It must address the question of poverty eradication, global inequality and underdevelopment, among other things.
The summit comes at a time when nearly half of sub-Saharan Africa lives on just US 65 cents a day; when 4 million people are starving in Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia - just on our doorstep; when developmental aid is dwindling to a trickle; when, by the end of this year, 90% of Aids orphans will be living in Africa; when only 58% of the population have access to safe water; when 41% of those over 15 years of age are illiterate; when a significant number of women and children go to bed hungry; and when malaria, TB and other preventable diseases take their toll.
All this is happening at the same time as the rich, developed countries subsidise their farmers to the tune of US $360 billion, one third more than the entire GDP of Africa.
Globalisation opens up tremendous possibilities but also poses major challenges and dangers. The CHOGM Fancourt Declaration says, and I quote:
In today’s world, no country is untouched by the forces of globalisation. Our destinies are linked together as never before. The challenge is to seize the opportunities opened up by globalisation while minimising its risks.
The persistence of poverty and human deprivation diminishes us all. It also makes global peace and security fragile, it limits the growth of markets and forces millions to migrate in search of a better life. It constitutes a deep and fundamental structural flaw in the world economy.
The greatest challenge therefore facing us today is how to channel the forces of globalisation for the elimination of poverty and the empowerment of human beings to lead fulfilling lives.
How have international institutions, transnational corporations, multilateral institutions and advanced industrialised countries contributed to this unevenness in the global economy, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? The principal institutions of the international economy operate and have operated, since their inception, largely as extensions of the foreign economic policy of the United States government. These institutions - the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation - have been the architects of what we commonly call globalisation.
The internationalisation of the US way of doing business is often in conflict with the legitimate aspirations of the people of South Africa, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. I would like to contend that no country that is now among the economically advanced countries got where it is by policies of unregulated openness. A lack of control over foreign commerce tends to relegate developing countries to backwardness in terms of technological development, weakness in government developmental spending and severe financial instability. But this unregulated openness or liberalisation is expected of developing nations by the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF.
The IMF’s main role is to assist countries that have a problem paying international debt. Countries that receive these loans are encouraged to have fiscal and monetary discipline and therefore have to implement a range of macroeconomic measures, the deregulation of business and labour and lower levels of social spending. These requirements have often, if not in most cases, resulted in stifling development, causing greater hardship for the average citizen. Recent IMF policies towards Brazil conformed with the requirements of the US treasury that allowed American banks to exit their investments, which resulted in an increase in unemployment and a decline in social spending, which increased homelessness and caused widespread hardship. More recently, the IMF exacerbated the acute financial crisis in Argentina. Jeffrey Sachs, in the Sunday Times of 5 May says, and I quote:
As Argentina’s crisis worsens and with unemployment soaring, the IMF keeps asking for deeper cuts. This is something like the 18th century medical practice in which doctors treated feverish patients by drawing blood from them, weakening them further and frequently hastening their deaths.
In Zambia, the frontloading of debt relief actually pushed up debt service payments, crowding out education and health expenditure. In other African states, IMF policies diminished the capacity of people to provide for their own food needs and resulted in mass starvation. Interestingly, this IMF approach was abandoned in rich countries about 70 years ago, but it still persists in developing nations.
The WTO is supposed to make rules for governing world trade. The main objectives of the WTO are to raise the living standards and incomes of all the world’s people, to ensure the creation of full employment, to expand world production and trade and optimally use the world’s resources.
The question is: Does it succeed or even try to succeed in doing the above? The WTO is divided into two camps, the rich developed nations and the poor developing ones. The international trade environment is not neutral and is shaped by the US policy of favouring multinational corporations. The WTO rules are being applied selectively by rich countries. While global negotiations are rapidly moving towards free markets in foreign investments and services, interventions by developed countries in textiles and agricultural products create obstacles for exports in areas where developing countries in Africa and elsewhere are currently competitive.
The EU’s move from price subsidies to direct aid to farmers is particularly significant in the WTO regime. Through the introduction and expansion of direct payment to farmers, it is possible to reduce the price of EU agricultural products worldwide, thus undercutting exports of agricultural products from Africa, where it has the competitive edge. South African sugar, sweets, dairy products and some canned fruits and vegetables are especially affected. The challenge for South Africa, SADC and other African producers is to monitor the changing nature of EU aid to its agricultural and agroprocessing sectors and to establish appropriate policy measures in the WTO to ensure some levelling of the playing fields.
The Doha round is just beginning to address these issues. The 2002 Unctad report confirms that the North has indeed been the big winner and further says that improving access to Northern markets remains the litmus test of whether trade negotiations are in the interests of developing countries. At least US $700 billion in export earnings could be generated for developing countries, in turn beginning to alleviate the scourge of poverty. Horst Köhler, IMF managing director, has said that the true test of the credibility of wealthy nations’ efforts to combat poverty lies in their willingness to open up their markets and phase out trade-distorting subsidies. This has special significance for Nepad. The modalities for such a rebalancing and restructuring of the Northern trade regimes remain to be determined.
George Bernard Shaw once said that poverty was a crime. It is almost certainly an affront to our common humanity. To combat poverty, we need debt cancellation for all LDCs, or less developed countries, an increase in developmental aid, greater debt relief, increased market access for African goods and better prices for our primary commodities. We need to become globally competitive, accelerate regional economic integration and develop new skills and knowledge. We need to ensure that governments proactively develop and promote job creation, economic growth, education and health care. We need to see that Africa’s human and mineral resources work for its people and not for the gain of the few. We need to find a way to hold organisations like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO accountable and to redefine their mandates. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, the IFP associates itself with the words of appreciation expressed to a number of people, including the hon the Minister and her Deputy and the officials in the department. In particular, we are saddened by the departure of Mr Ebi Ebrahim from the post of chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs, but we wish Dr Pallo Jordan well in his new and very challenging position. To his credit, I can state that Dr Jordan has already taken positive steps to make the work of the committee interesting and relevant to the prevailing international situation.
The central theme of our discussions today is South Africa’s foreign policy. It is necessary to ask ourselves what foreign policy is. To briefly reflect on what the principles are which govern our country’s foreign policy, I had a look at various attempts to define foreign policy and have chosen to refer to the definition by a previous South African ambassador to Russia, Dr Gerril Olivier, in his doctoral thesis. Dr Olivier wrote the first doctoral thesis on foreign policy in South Africa.
According to him, foreign policy should address the following five principles: firstly, the protection of political independence, territorial integrity, national security and a specific lifestyle; secondly, the establishment of social security for the citizens of the state; thirdly, the increase of the state’s prestige; fourthly, the expansion or protection of a specific ideology; and lastly, the expansion of the state’s international influence.
These, then, are the principles as laid down by Ambassador Olivier, but I want to add to these by stating that the real challenge we as foreign affairs politicians face is to try to make it possible for all people on earth to live harmoniously together at the same time.
But whatever we define as foreign affairs principles, one outstanding and overriding principle has emerged, and that is own interest. Countries manage their international relations and their foreign affairs on the basis of what is in the best interests of that particular country. It reminds one of the saying: Countries do not have friends, they only have interests. In our case, therefore, we follow suit and place South Africa’s interests first.
Another lesson that South Africa should be sensitive to is that, internationally speaking, countries have the same personality traits that people have. A country is therefore merely the collective persona of its people, and, because of that, the same human weaknesses that complicate people’s personal interactions also exist at the international level. An unfortunate example of this is the so-called ugly American, which reputation resulted from the negative perception created by America’s great international influence.
With Nepad, South Africa should therefore be careful not to attract the same negative picture of the African continent. Being a giant, as South Africa is, in a subcontinent surrounded by neighbours that are dwarfed by our economy, it requires special constraints to prevent resentment from smaller nations. I personally witnessed the attitudes of other African states at a conference of the World Economic Forum in Geneva some years ago. They were very sensitive to the possibility of being overshadowed by the South African giant. We should therefore follow a moderate and subdued approach in our international affairs, particularly with reference to Nepad in Africa.
In respect of Zimbabwe, the South African Government’s policy can rightly be criticised. There are very few examples in the modern intertwined world that so clearly illustrate the extent of human rights abuses possible under a dictatorial regime such as the one that still holds sway in Zimbabwe. South Africa professes to be a champion of human rights. Yet we have decided to follow the cause of silent diplomacy, with no tangible results, while the abuses continue unabated.
The Minister of Defence has spoken out, at last admitting failure. On Zimbabwe it is time for South Africa to take a clear and strong stance against President Mugabe. We are also concerned about the Government’s stance and actions on the Middle East. When it comes to international conflicts the IFP advocates that South Africa should not take sides. We believe that by taking the side of one party, one alienates the other party, thereby destroying one’s own potential to influence the party so alienated.
The IFP proposes that in respect of the Middle East, as in other international conflicts, the Government should adopt a three-step strategy: Firstly, do not take sides; secondly, encourage the conflicting parties to stop the violence; and, thirdly, engage in negotiations.
The Minister of Education is asking me a question, but I will have time later to educate the Minister properly. We in the IFP are particularly concerned about the manner in which the Government is openly and actively siding with the Palestinians in the Middle East conflict, so much so that it may one day regret it. Minister Kasrils, for whom I have great personal respect, is to be criticised for actually taking to the streets and taking sides with the Palestinians against the Israelis. Nobody reprimands Minister Kasrils for doing so. Are we therefore to assume that the Government agrees with this action and is also taking to the streets with Minister Kasrils against the Israelis? Today Mr Ebrahim launched a vicious attack on Israel, but remained totally silent about numerous suicide bomb attacks killing dozens of innocent Israeli civilians.
Surely there is no such thing as a publicly stated personal opinion where a Cabinet Minister or a politician is concerned. They are talking on behalf of the ANC Government.
In respect of the Middle East conflict, our sincere request to the Government is not to involve South Africa on the side of one of the conflicting parties, as is now happening. It should be pointed out that the leader of my party, Dr M G Buthelezi, has met with Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli dignitaries such as Mr Shimon Peres on a number of occasions. The IFP has not alienated one of the conflicting parties and we accordingly have an open door with both of them.
When the Government arranged a meeting in Cape Town recently between Israelis and Palestinians, retired NP politicians were invited to the conference. Yet the IFP, which is the ANC’s partner in Government, was not invited. Similarly, the IFP was not invited to the Sun City negotiations about the future of the Democratic Republic of Congo. One wonders what to read into that. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Nothing.
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: I would be very careful to make interjections like that if I were my friend over there.
In conclusion, we support the Vote and wish the Minister and the team the best of luck for the coming year. Mooi loop. [Go well.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, Deputy President, Ministers and hon members, as the discussions reflect, international relations have to be conducted in a world that has fundamentally changed in the last decade.
Today we live in an era of profound change distinguished by globalisation. Globalisation has been made possible by the unprecedented dismantling of barriers to trade and capital mobility together with unprecedented technological advances and the steadily declining cost of transportation, communication and information technology.
Clearly, we cannot roll back globalisation or ignore it. However, we must ensure that it works in the interests of all, both the developed and developing countries, the big and the small. Globalisation’s manifestation has a profound impact on the global economy and indeed on the world political order. Every country’s foreign policy is influenced by these manifestations which include a dramatic increase in flows of capital.
We must accept the reality that today the global bond market is remarkably big. By mid-1999 the total value of bonds outstanding had reached the daunting figure of US $34 trillion. That exceeds the total GDP of all the world’s countries. The daily turnover on the world’s foreign exchange markets increased from $1,6 trillion in 1995 to $2 trillion in 1998, implying annual flows of more than $400 trillion a year. Monopolisation is taking place at an unprecedented pace. Of the Fortune 500 top companies of 1980, only 60% were still in existence by the year 1994. The others had either gone bankrupt or had been merged with other companies. This is leading to a growing concentration of financial and economic power.
In 1997 around 90% of the total bond issuance was issued by just 20 firms. It is remarkable that a transnational communications stakeholder in the USA two or three years ago created a company whose market value exceeds the GDP of nearly half of all the UN members. A task force sponsored by the New York Council of Foreign Affairs concluded that the assets of the three top billionaires are more than the combined GDP of all less developed countries and their 600 million people.
On the other hand, while there is growing demand and pressure for the liberalisation of our economies, we witnessed increased protectionism in the developed countries. For instance, the OECD agricultural subsidy of close to $360 billion a year is something that makes it impossible for the African countries and developing countries to compete on the market with countries that are forcing us to liberalise our economies.
The USA only recently announced $160 billion in agricultural subsidies for their farmers for the next 10 years. We are also witnessing increased use of other nontariff restrictions to deny access to our products in the markets of the developed world. We can add to this the unprecedented scientific and technological revolution. In 1997 143 million people used the Internet. By 2002 there are over 700 million users. This year the e- commerce market is expected to grow to $300 billion. Given these developments few can deny that globalisation has opened up new possibilities for growth and spectacular advances have been made, but also few can deny that these advances have been grossly uneven.
Nearly 1,3 billion people do not have access to clean water; one in seven children of primary school age are out of school; an estimated 1,3 billion people live on incomes of less than $1 a day; and, as I was indicating, on the other hand it has been estimated that a 4% levy on the world’s 225 most well-to do people would suffice to produce the following essentials for all those in the developing countries: adequate food, safe water and sanitation, basic education, basic health care and reproductive health care.
Clearly development that perpetuates such inequalities is neither sustainable nor worth sustaining. Inequality of wealth and opportunities is growing within countries. However, the growing inequalities between countries are even more stark. Can we continue to accept the reality that one fifth of the world’s people living in the highest-income countries have 86% of the world’s GDP and the bottom fifth have a mere 1%; that the top fifth have 82% of the world’s export markets and the bottom fifth just 1%; that OECD countries, with 19% of the global population, have 71% of the global trade in goods and services, 58% of foreign direct investment and 91% of all Internet users?
As the Minister indicated, the reality of this is that the consequences for Africa are stark. Africa’s share of the world’s absolute poor increased from 25% to 30% in the 1990s. Africa’s share of world trade has plummeted since 1960 and, as indicated, now accounts for less than 2%. [Interjections.]
The savings rates in many African countries are the lowest in the world. In 1997 Africa’s debt was estimated to be $159 billion and by 1999 it had reached staggering figure of $201 billion.
Mr N S BRUCE: Tell us what you are going to do about it.
The DEPUTY MINISTER: We are going to get rid of you. The reality is that, for millions, poverty and wealth are very unequally distributed and many of the wretched of the earth are condemned to lives of extreme poverty and degradation. This stark reality provides a fertile environment for conflict, instability and underdevelopment. As I indicated earlier, this situation is unacceptable and unsustainable.
The ANC in its January 8 message called on the world -
… to ensure that the process of globalisation does not result in the further all-round widening of the gap between the rich and developed North and the poor, developing South, which would condemn billions of people to poverty. This would be a certain recipe for the most catastrophic social upheavals engulfing the whole globe. How do we respond to this challenge that the ANC put out? Over the last decades we have experienced the rampant growth of neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies and policies which confuse market economies with market societies and argue that the debate about the nature of political economy has ended. The neoliberal paradigm, which is represented on my left, gives little consideration to concerns about representative democracy, human rights and social justice and the environment. It sees globalisation as a deregulated process of being able to do anything anywhere in the world in order to maximise profit.
I would remind my colleagues on the left of an article written in the Financial Times of London, as early as April last year, which says:
Vigorous market competition helps create individuals of a particular sort; homo economic or egoistic maximising men …
As represented by this hon member. [Interjections.] The article continues: By default the world is now opting for the version of capitalism in which the profit motive is largely unrestrained.
This, indeed, is a recipe for a global catastrophe. We must seek people- centred and socially conscious alternatives. Nepad is such an answer to the demands that we are putting forward, to enable us to deal with the situations which the Minister dealt with. [Interjections.]
The Commonwealth Fancourt declaration said:
Our destinies are linked together as never before. The persistence of poverty and human deprivation diminishes us all.
This is something that the hon member does not understand.
It makes global peace and security fragile, limits the growth of markets and forces millions to migrate in search of a better life. It constitutes a deep and fundamental structural flaw in the world economy. The greatest challenge therefore facing us is how to channel the forces of globalisation for the elimination of poverty and the empowerment of human beings to lead fulfilling lives.
This is not something that neoliberalism can provide.
The UN declaration goes further and says:
While globalisation offers great opportunities, at present its benefits are very unevenly shared, while its costs are unevenly distributed. Only through broad and sustained efforts to create a shared future based upon our common humanity in all its diversity, can globalisation be made fully inclusive and equitable.
These perspectives, I believe, represent the growing sentiments of a broad and representative movement which is united in its rejection of neoliberalism and blind faith in markets. What is emerging is a perspective of globalisation based on a democratic and just world order and a new system of collective responsibility. This powerful army that is growing internationally must be mobilised by us to support the interests of the developing countries and indeed to support Nepad.
The year 2001 will undoubtedly be remembered for the terrible tragedy that occurred on 11 September. We are now having to deal with new policies, based on the concepts of global coalition against terrorism, the axis of evil, the clash of civilisations, etc.
Also the debate between unilateralism and multilateralism is growing more pronounced. All this impacts fundamentally on international relations. These are issues that, I hope, the portfolio committee and Parliament will be seized with.
We cannot withdraw from our steadfast conviction that to defeat terrorism we need a holistic approach to deal with the root causes thereof. These are, inter alia: the eradication of poverty; ensuring sustainable development; combating the negative consequences of globalisation; preventing global warming; containing the threats to global peace and security, including the current conflict in the Middle East; eradicating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance; and combating transnational crime and terrorism.
Sadly, different perspectives of the current global situation are emerging, different interpretations reflecting two different basic agendas, namely the development and the security agenda. Amongst countries of the South there is a perception that some countries of the developed North are giving priority to the security agenda to the detriment of the development agenda, thus failing to see the interconnectivity between security and development. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Are you going to Kashmir?
The DEPUTY MINISTER: Yes, I will take you with me.
Failure to appreciate this is resulting in the growing alienation of many and in disillusionment with the manner in which governments conduct their business, as well as reaction to the existing global environment.
The Minister referred to the rise of right-wing extremism in Europe and elsewhere, the growth of xenophobia and racism, antireligion and the clash of civilisations.
In this context the situation in the Middle East continues to deteriorate. I am surprised that the hon Van der Merwe can come here today and talk of taking sides. Who can deny that what is going on in the Middle East constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security, and undoubtedly creates the most fertile breeding ground for terrorism?
In the last few days Israeli troops again invaded the West Bank towns of Tulkarm, Qalgiya, Bethlehem and Jenin. The Israeli government has also announced more draconian laws to prevent the movement of Palestinians within the Palestinian territories. When we condemn this, are we taking sides? No, we are not taking sides; we are condemning what is literally wrong.
Let me go to the hon Van der Merwe, who should stop reading Olivier. Olivier is a man of the past. A famous Israeli author, Amos Oz, recently wrote, and I quote:
I am willing to fight the just war for the survival of Israel. I refuse, however, to fight for the continued occupation of Palestinian land. This war is unjust. It saps my country’s sanity and morality and corrupts its soul … I saw kids grow up with hatred in their eyes. Eyes that I was ashamed to meet.
He is reflecting the views of thousands of Israelis who are saying the same things. They are for the Israeli state but they are against the occupation and aggression carried out against the Palestinian people. We will make no apologies for the fact that the Government of South Africa unreservedly condemns the collective punishment that the Israeli defence force imposes on the Palestinians.
We will be unreserved in our condemnation of the continued attempts to destroy the infrastructure of the Palestinian National Authority and its legitimately elected leadership. We will not be apologetic for the fact that we condemn the extrajudicial killings carried out by the Israeli defence force and the loss of so many innocent lives.
Who can be silent, when we have seen allegations of what happened in Jenin and other occupied territories? [Interjections.] How can we remain silent about the fact that the Israeli government made it impossible for the Secretary-General of the UN’s fact-finding team to go to Jenin to determine the truth? Israel’s seek-and-destroy policy is doomed to failure. The right of Israel to exist as a state within secure borders is not questioned, but they will never be secure unless they accept the reality that the conflict in the Middle East is based on the fact that the Palestinian people must have their legitimate homeland. Israel’s security will never be assured if they do not accept that fact.
Let me end by saying that we will never accept the way Israel has treated Security Council resolutions with impunity. It impacts on multilateralism when double standards are applied, when one country can refuse to implement unanimous Security Council resolutions.
In conclusion, let me quote what the President, in the first-ever, historic Africa-EU summit said:
Cairo will have meaning only to the extent that all of us, without exception, wage the struggle to end human suffering in Africa with the passionate intensity of the humanists who have given dignity to despised human beings, while others …
Like my friends on the left -
… were happy to enclose themselves within their little worlds of selective and false fulfilment.
The AU and Nepad, as the Minister said, are Africa’s response to the challenges we face. I believe, not necessarily with the assistance of the DP, we will make this an African century. [Applause.]
Dr B L GELDENHUYS: Madam Speaker, the previous speaker must now be the longest-serving Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in the world, and he deserves a medal for that. [Applause]
Despite the fact that the outgoing chairperson of the committee, the hon Ebrahim, once on Robben Island stole a newspaper out of the car of Jimmy Kruger, then Minister of Law and Order, he is still a man of integrity who led the committee well. [Laughter.]
The incoming chair, Dr Pallo Jordan, is a well-known expert in the field of foreign affairs who speaks his own mind, and we are looking forward to working with him. The acting director-general has done a good job so far and should be appointed permanently. We appreciate the regular and informative interaction of the Deputy Minister with the committee.
To the Minister let me say: Madame la Ministre, bienvenue dans Afrique du Sud. Welcome back in South Africa. [Laughter.] Hopefully the Minister’s newly acquired knowledge of the French language will help her persuade the French government to lift all subsidies on agricultural products so that our own agricultural products can become more competitive on world markets.
During our visit to the department the following came to light. It has been said here previously that the morale of the department is very low, unfortunately, and there are three reasons for this. Firstly, too many vacant posts lead to an unbearable workload. Secondly, too many senior officials are in acting positions, which creates uncertainty. Thirdly - and I know that this is a sensitive issue - reverse discrimination marginalises many talented personnel.
The solution is quite simple. Fill the vacant posts as soon as possible, appoint those who are in acting capacities permanently because they have proven themselves quite capable of doing the job and stop all forms of reverse discrimination within the department. Yes, transformation is essential, and the New NP has said all along that the Department of Foreign Affairs should reflect the population composition of South Africa. But the transformation process has virtually been completed, and therefore we believe that the people who are currently in the department should all enjoy the same job security and promotion prospects.
The New NP position on the Middle East is briefly the following. When President Mbeki addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations earlier this year, he said the following:
Together we must take the firm position that no circumstances whatsoever can ever justify resort to terrorism.
We not only fully endorse this view, but we also believe that it should apply to the Middle East as well. We therefore unconditionally condemn every incident of suicide bombings in the Middle East. We also regret the rejection of an independent Palestinian state by the Likud party in Israel. We firmly believe that peace can only be achieved in the Middle East when an independent Palestinian state is established and when the security of the state of Israel within its own borders is guaranteed. The Saudi Arabian peace plan, which embodies both the aforesaid conditions, should therefore be considered as a basis for further negotiations.
On the reform of the United Nations allow me the following remarks. Yes, the United Nations Security Council should become more representative, but the United Nations should also transform itself from being a toothless talkshop into a body which can enforce its own Universal Declaration on Human Rights on the rest of the world.
From time to time, unfortunately, this organisation shoots itself in the foot in this regard. President Mugabe, for example, should never have been allowed to attend - or, even worse, address - the United Nations special session on children. He openly and shamelessly defied articles 5, 7, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which respectively guarantee freedom from torture, equality before the law, the right to property, freedom of thought and freedom of opinion and expression. As long as violators of human rights get red-carpet treatment at the world body, and as long as countries with no respect for human rights, like Zimbabwe, the People’s Republic of China and Cuba, get elected to the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, the organisation will remain a toothless body which only pays lip service to the upliftment of human rights.
The New Partnership for Africa’s Development initiated by President Mbeki is a welcome new breeze on the continent. It is a recognition that Africa’s future lies in its own hands. Much has been said about Africa’s obligations in terms of the agreement, but I want to highlight the developed world’s obligation in terms of this agreement, and the most important one is that they should open their markets for Africa’s products.
Currently, sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 2% of world trade. European restrictions on the import of food from Africa annually block agricultural products worth $700 million entering their countries. This cannot continue.
Free trade is the key to the development of Africa. Unfortunately, our own country is in the dock as far as free trade is concerned. Our imports from the rest of Africa decreased from R1,6 billion in 1997-98 to only R980 million in 1998-99. An improvement in this regard is of the essence.
Die Buitelandse Sakebegroting van ‘n bietjie meer as R2 miljard is nie naastenby genoeg om die departement in staat te stel om Suid-Afrika se belange effektief in die buiteland te verteenwoordig nie. Die dae toe duisende mense met vyf broodjies en twee visse gevoed is, is vir goed verby.
Internasionale handel neem by die dag toe en hierdie funksie word nou uitsluitlik die verantwoordelikheid van Buitelandse Sake, omdat Handel en Nywerheid aan groot dele van die wêreld onttrek het. Vandat die vryhandelsooreenkoms met die EU gesluit is, het ons handel met Europa met 50% toegeneem. Wêreldhandel verg dus groter betrokkenheid en aanwesigheid van Suid-Afrika oral oor die wêreld. Ons missies is te klein om die werk behoorlik te doen.
Behalwe die Inkomstediens, is die Departement van Buitelandse Sake die enigste departement wat geld inbring - en moet dus baie meer geld kry. Ek wil die agb Minister bedank dat sy die saak van belasting op toelaes in die buiteland op ‘n verantwoordelike wyse aanspreek. Ons wens haar daarmee geluk. Ons steun die begrotingspos. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [The Foreign Affairs budget of a little more than R2 billion is not nearly enough to enable the department to represent the interests of South Africa effectively in foreign countries. The days when thousands of people were fed with five loaves of bread and two fishes are gone for good.
International trade increases by the day and this function now becomes the exclusive responsibility of Foreign Affairs, because Trade and Industry has withdrawn from many parts of the world. Since the Free Trade Agreement with the EU was concluded, our trade with Europe has increased by 50%. World trade therefore demands a greater involvement and presence of South Africa throughout the world. Our missions are too small to do the work effectively.
Apart from the Revenue Service, the Department of Foreign Affairs is the only department that brings in money - and should therefore receive much more money. I would like to thank the hon the Minister for addressing the matter of tax on allowances in foreign countries in a responsible manner. We wish her all the best with this endeavour. We support this Vote.]
Ms N V CINDI: Madam Speaker, Minister, Deputy Minister and hon members, I shall be speaking on the issue of co-operation, co-operation not only among African countries and states, but also between Africa and the rest of the world. The poverty and backwardness of Africa, Africa’s inability to prevent the spread of communicable diseases and the consequent ill-health of the people stand in sharp contrast to the capacity the human family has attained to address these matters.
These circumstances are not necessarily of Africa’s own making. They are part of the legacy left behind by colonialism. The era of the world war made the position worse with two antagonists waging their contests on African soil. The war in Angola was a classic example of this.
Today, humankind has learned how to combat a host of illnesses. More food is produced and more wealth created amongst the nations today than at any other time in human history. Yet millions of people in various parts of the world go to bed hungry. A huge number of those millions live in Africa. Poverty and its attendant hunger result in declining health standards. The infant mortality rate on the continent has risen astronomically. The spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/Aids, TB and malaria continues to claim African souls.
This situation is a serious indictment of humanity finding a solution to it, not as an act of charity, but in the interests of the human family. It is a situation that demands that we Africans actively intervene. The rest of the world will not rescue us if we ourselves are not doing anything about it.
The New Partnership for Africa’s Development, Nepad, represents a courageous attempt by African states acting collectively to do something about the condition of our continent. At the centre of this initiative is partnership; partnership in the first instance amongst the African states themselves, and partnership with those in the world who are genuinely interested in Africa’s development.
Nepad is premised on good governance. There have been too many rulers and governments on the continent who came to power by dubious means. In the past leading powers accepted this because such governments suited their political interests. The abuse of human rights and other cultures of impunity have encouraged and fuelled the sort of genocide we saw in Rwanda.
The worst victims of such abuses are invariably women, children, the disabled and the elderly. The demand for good governance has this humanitarian angle as well.
Nepad seeks to establish a new kind of co-operation between Africa and the West. For too long the terms of Africa’s association with the West have been dictated by the West. Nepad redefines this relationship by offering African solutions to the problems facing our continent. We want the markets of the developed countries to be opened up to African raw materials, agricultural produce and beneficiated goods. We want to see the terms on which Africa trades in international markets radically improved. We want to stimulate and encourage synergies among African countries themselves to produce the desirable results we seek.
South African veterinary science has made significant advances in combating animal diseases peculiar to the continent. That should be made available to other African countries. African states to our north have retained skills relating to the cultivation of drought-resistant crops. South Africa’s subsistence farmers can learn from them.
South-South co-operation is already a reality in the field of communications. This can be greatly expanded, provided that we have a well- targeted approach and focus on those areas where mutually beneficial co- operation is possible. The countries of Asia are a huge untapped market, both for South African goods and for our tourism products. The possibilities this holds out can be measured by a single comparison. India alone has a large middle class with disposable income whose numbers surpass the combined total of all the countries of Europe together. Yet African countries, including South Africa, continue to focus on the European markets, to the neglect of the Asian markets that have such great potential.
If we agree that nothing is absolute, that the future is in the womb of the present, then Nepad offers Africa the chance to turn the corner. Out of the ashes of the past there is already emerging a new breed of African leadership that seeks to restore Africa’s dignity, that seeks to create an Africa free of hunger and poverty, an Africa that shall experience no wars, an Africa where our children will cry because they are children and not because they are hungry or in pain.
If we are to realise this ideal, we need to do a number of things. Africans must get to know each other through people-to-people interaction. We must build strong organs of civil society that will serve not only to check the power of governments, but more importantly to make a positive contribution to developmental aims and programmes. We need a strong democratic culture which will empower the weak and the vulnerable, not merely provide one more avenue for the ambition of the vocal and well-resourced.
We must mobilise world opinions to support Africa’s initiatives such as Nepad. We must encourage co-operation among the countries of the South, while not neglecting the rest of the world. The concept of people-to-people interaction and co-operation is critical, if we are to achieve peace.
Civil society in Africa must work tirelessly to ensure that our agenda for peace and security is foremost in the minds of our counterpart countries in the North. We must foster interactions between nations, not merely the presidents of nations.
Over the past 10 years, democratic institutions have made great strides on our continent. Continental bodies have made it clear that they will not accept and tolerate governments that did not come to power through democratic processes. This must not become the cornerstone of the political culture of the African Union. Peace is within the grasp of many troubled countries of Africa. Peace and democracy can only assist in our efforts at the eradication of poverty. Our campaign to gain market access among the developed countries will receive a major boost as peace gains ground.
In developing our human rights culture, we must pay particular attention to a problem that has now become endemic in the continent. This problem is refugees and displaced persons. African societies can no longer afford to ignore the obligation international law imposes on us. This applies in particular to countries such as South Africa, where the ugly face of xenophobia has begun to show itself among our people.
The progress humankind has made over the last century means that the world is an extremely small place. Its size dictates that we should learn to work together for the common good and for the good of the human family. [Applause.]
Mr W G MAKANDA: Madam Speaker, may I join my colleagues in wishing the outgoing chairman of the Foreign Affairs portfolio committee, the hon Ebrahim, Godspeed and welcoming Comrade Pallo Jordan to the committee. We look forward to working with him.
I take this opportunity to respond to the Budget speech of the hon the Minister. The UDM as an organisation supports a foreign policy that serves the national interest. It is for this reason that we support the department’s Vote, and we are of the opinion that this department deserves more if it is going to be able to meet its obligations and discharge its responsibilities.
The national interest entails our economic development, job creation, poverty alleviation and social transformation at all levels of human endeavour in order to correct the historical imbalances. It also entails the eradication of crime in the public and private sectors, reconciliation and healing and therefore a commitment to move forward and the creation of a secure future for our future generations. It should also guarantee national security and our national sovereignty and the development of an empowering educational system that will improve the quality of life of our people.
In 1995, the department was mandated to integrate the foreign affairs components of the old South Africa, the TBVC states and the liberation movements. Indeed, some progress has been made but much still needs to be done to create a coherent, representative and harmonious structure at all levels at home and abroad.
Transformation must filter down to the grass roots, enhance a new culture and develop a diplomat who can measure up to the challenges of the day.
Training is the sine qua non for meaningful transformation. The Foreign Affairs training institute, while making a serious effort to achieve this goal, falls far short in its scope and depth.
We need to look into a future with a fully fledged school of diplomacy that caters for all our national, regional and continental needs, taking into account our current developmental challenges.
During the visit of the portfolio committee to the department, we noted with some concern the number of officials who are placed in senior positions in acting capacities. This was, of course, mentioned by my colleagues. There is common agreement that this situation creates uncertainty, and negatively impacts on the morale of the department. We submit, with respect to the hon the Minister, that this situation requires her urgent attention.
The UDM believes that the success of Nepad resides in our grasp of the fundamentals of the North-South political and power economic relations that have evolved over time. That understanding will shape our bilateral and multilateral strategies in our dealings with the North. The latter’s engagement with the continent is predicated on self-interest.
Of course, an Africa that is afflicted by endless conflict, poverty and disease is not in their long-term interests. We need to strengthen our bargaining position as a continent; forge alliances and co-operation with developing communities in other parts of the world that share our disabilities and vision. To do this, we must put our house in order first and put an end to the internecine wars and the pillaging of our resources by corrupt despots.
The African Union has to succeed where the OAU floundered by overcoming the divisive tendencies that are a legacy of the scramble for spheres of dominance and influence in Africa. We must break down the parallel corridors into which our history has confined us and build horizontal highways that reconnect previously estranged brothers and neighbours.
The African Parliament presupposes a willingness by individual African states to forego some measure of national sovereignty in the interests of a greater continental good. That process will entail difficult and complex negotiations.
There is consensus on the route of democracy as the best guarantee to Africa’s renewal. However, it may well be that the Westminster model is not necessarily the best for our environment. We should research possible alternative empirical models that take into account our peculiar African realities and experiences.
We may well be able to come up with credible institutions that ensure broad participatory and democratic governance, that enjoy the respect and support of the people on the ground and that are therefore sustainable.
We are of the opinion that we as a Government must reappraise our approach to international terrorism. We must distinguish between just wars and mindless terror that targets innocent civilians. We should condemn such terrorism whether perpetrated by individuals, political groupings or governments.
We should be wary of governments who use their military might to impose their will on weaker states and undermine their sovereignty under the guise of fighting terrorism, when, in reality, they are pursuing their national agendas. The leaders of this Government were at one time or another, regarded as personae non gratae - terrorists - in some leading capitals of the world. The Israel-Palestine conflict has polarised communities regionally and globally. This situation does not lend itself to the solution of the conundrum. We should therefore focus on the areas of consensus rather than those of disagreement. [Time expired.]
Adv Z L MADASA: Madam Speaker, firstly, I shall address the policy on conflict resolution. What is South Africa known for? What has made us get the respect of the democratic world? We are known for promoting constitutional democracy. We are known for our ability and capacity for reconciliation, tolerance and pluralism, in spite of our diversity. We are known for having successfully negotiated a political settlement. We are known for a relatively smooth and short transition to democracy. This is who we are to the world.
Conflict resolution in the SADC region, in the continent and in the Middle East is urgent if the global developmental agenda is to succeed. We must be careful, therefore, that we project ourselves, both overtly and covertly, as neutral arbiters when dealing with these conflicts. Once we become partisan, as we are sometimes perceived, we will immediately lose our influence and the respect of other nations.
In this continent, we must take measures to remain neutral and patient if we are going to succeed and become significant leaders in the African Union and in the promotion of Nepad. South Africans are notorious in the continent for equating our economic development with superior intellectual capacity. We must be careful and avoid being perceived as intellectually arrogant. We must treat our neighbours as equals. Turning to the department, I would like to say that the President has, on numerous occasions, raised his concerns about the capacity of our Government to deliver services. In Foreign Affairs, the lack of capacity is challenged, not only by Nepad and the coming launch of the AU but by numerous unfilled vacancies. Many speakers before me have spoken about this. Many senior administrators, whom we observed when we toured the department, including the director-general, are acting in their posts. We appeal to the Minister to do something urgently in this regard.
Increased taxation of our diplomats will not help us build capacity either. I am happy that the Minister has addressed the issue. We appeal to her to revisit the matter and to address it because it has also contributed to low morale. I also call for closer co-operation among the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry, and Defence in respect of the promotion of Nepad. Our increased international participation must be accompanied by reciprocal management planning and budgeting, if we are to succeed. We support the budget and believe that more should have been allocated in order to support our expansion philosophy within the continent, and the developmental agenda of the poor, globally. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the outgoing chairman and welcome Dr Pallo Jordan.
Mrs F MAHOMED: In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Madam Speaker, South Africa has made great strides in laying a strong foundation for the achievement of gender equality despite being a new democracy. It is also enshrined in our Constitution. However, my focus is to determine whether the department has integrated gender concerns into its core functions.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has, in fact, prioritised four important areas of foreign policy objectives, namely security, stability, economic and social development, and co-operation. Clearly, all these directly and indirectly impact on the lives of women. I am happy to say that the policy documents explicitly refer to the important issues regarding migrants, refugees, children and human rights, within the area of bilateral and multilateral relations.
The establishment of the gender unit in SADC is definitely a vehicle of regional co-operation in terms of our bilaterals with our neighbours, and will also serve as a vehicle for discussing issues concerning visas, citizenship and other matters. Our Minister and Deputy Minister have stated our position that immigration issues will be dealt with sensitively and humanely, as incorrect handling of illegal immigration issues will have serious foreign policy implications and will exacerbate xenophobic attitudes.
I wish to refer to the fact that many South African women are coerced into marrying illegal immigrants for the sole purpose of acquiring citizenship. We need to guard against that.
I wish to mention that women bear the brunt of abject poverty, and I just want to say that South Africa’s share of trade now accounts for less than 2% of world trade. In 1997, Africa’s trade was estimated at $ 159 billion and by 1999 this had increased to $ 201 billion. We are faced with the reality that huge outstanding external debts only increase our burden of poverty and massive unemployment. Therefore it is imperative that the reform of the global financial architecture of the WTO, IMF and World Bank could enhance sustainable development globally, more particularly in the developing world.
The department needs to be commended on establishing the Women’s Rights Desk, which is designated to concentrate on external gender issues and to advise the Minister on international conventions and agreements concerning women. However, it needs to be said that all initiatives should be capacitated so that its mandate can be effectively realised.
As we all know, the DFA is centrally responsible for international conventions and agreements. Our Parliament has ratified Cedaw and has also signed the Convention on the Political Rights of Women. Article 13(b) of Cedaw remains a challenge whereby issues of assistance to South African small business by foreign donor countries must ensure sustainable development. The same question applies to the aid extended by South Africa to SADC countries. Indeed, our country is well-placed to provide implementation capacity as we have the expertise and technology.
I am happy to say that our developmental corridors and other initiatives are excellent examples of our commitment to Nepad and the African Union objectives.
Article 6 of Cedaw is a commitment to deal with the trafficking of women and prostitution. This challenge requires regional and international co- operation to ensure that regional transborder sex trafficking is on the decline. Article 8 of Cedaw addresses the DFA’s own transformation regarding the employment of women in the higher echelons of management. According to recent statistics, only 22% of those deployed as ambassadors and high commissioners are women as compared to 78% who are men. Women officials posted abroad are recorded to be 43%. However, it would be interesting to note how many positions in management echelons women occupy.
It is commendable that our Foreign Service Training Institute does make deliberate efforts to train more women. It needs to be mentioned that fiscal shifts have to be made in this regard. More African women must occupy directorships and deputy directorships. I know we have some, but we need more. Women are still seriously underrepresented in the highest echelons in the missions. It needs to be noted that the African Parliament must also ensure that women are well represented in that institution.
The Foreign Affairs budget is small in relation to Government’s total spending. Given the limited resources at the department’s disposal, the department has prioritised skills training for sustainable development and job creation. Skills centres have also been established in Mozambique, Angola and Lesotho.
Women also need to be capacitated to understand and assist our Government’s efforts to assist in peace efforts in the conflict areas of the DRC, Lesotho, Burundi and other SADC countries.
At this juncture, I want to respond to the hon Van der Merwe and, probably, also the hon Madasa, who spoke about the conflict in Palestine. I must admit that there can be no neutrality when it comes to people’s struggle for liberation. The ANC will always side with the oppressed and not the oppressor. I want the hon Van der Merwe to please tell us about his discussions with Prime Minister Sharon and about whether they talked about more tanks and more killings of the innocent people of Palestine. [Interjections.] I have to continue.
Women’s involvement in effective policy formulation is vital, as we all know that good economic governance will evolve well-defined structures, harmonious and complementary fiscal trends, and monetary and trade policies.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development has, on its developmental agenda, gender mainstreaming, which will directly address poverty eradication and bridging the digital divide and also includes other emerging themes such as energy, water, food, security, education and health.
All these initiatives directly impact on the lives of all human beings. Debt cancellation and reparations, land reform, wealth redistribution and sustainable development require women to be empowered so that they are able to influence policy and engage in arbitration and negotiation forums.
Women should be capacitated so that they are on decision-making forums regarding issues of arms trafficking, regional conflicts and environmental degradation. In terms of multilateral organs such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and the Security Council, and the reform thereof, women must make their voices heard. Again it is imperative for women to be involved and capacitated to understand the international humanitarian laws. We need to understand the approaches of the legislative models, so that we are able to lessen crime against humanity.
I wish to also add that women need to be capacitated to understand and assist our Government’s efforts in terms of our task teams working on the vital implementation of Nepad. More women must serve in priority areas of peace and security, economic and corporate governance, central banks and financial standards, agriculture and market access.
In conclusion, women are extremely vulnerable to the ravages of armed conflict. Reported cases of the rape and maiming of women in war situations in Bosnia, Palestine, Congo, Burundi and other areas have had devastating effects on the lives of women. But luckily, through the women’s resilience and ingenuity, they are still able to take up positions as heads of households, breadwinners and community champions when their husbands and sons are killed in wars.
In many war-ravaged countries, widows become homeless, landless and without a means of subsistence, as cultural barriers inhibit women from using existing statutory laws. Thus, these women become slaves to male members of the family, because homes they once owned become the homes of brothers-in- law and uncles-in-law.
I am happy to say that South Africa has made great strides in the formulation of our customary law, which aims to protect the rights of the wife. At this juncture, I also need to mention that in terms of conflict prevention and resolution, I am proud to say that South Africa took the lead to sign and ratify the Ottawa treaty and has taken significant steps to implement the destruction of antipersonnel mines. I am also proud to mention that the draft legislation, the Prohibition of Antipersonnel Mines Bill, is lauded as the best example of such legislation in the world. [Applause.]
Dr P W A MULDER: Mr Chairman, my thanks and appreciation, firstly, on behalf of the FF, go to the hon Mr Ebrahim for the role he has played in the portfolio committee. He was always fair towards us and we appreciate that. On the new chairperson, I was asked by an Afrikaner oom whether the ANC had finally come to its senses, by appointing this Afrikaner, Paul Jordaan, as the new chairman of the committee. [Laughter.] Now, I am going to work with this Afrikaner and give him a chance. Let us see if ``Paul Jordaan’’ can solve the problems or not.
I have just returned from a two-week visit abroad. As a member of the Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs, I make a point of visiting South Africa’s embassies in these countries. I was received in a friendly manner and had very good discussions with the different ambassadors and Foreign Affairs personnel. Although different embassies have different problems, the one common, but very serious, problem is this new taxation on the foreign allowance of Foreign Affairs personnel.
I was assured by Foreign Affairs personnel in Pretoria that the problem is being addressed. The reality is that in every embassy that I visited, all three of them, the South African people there are really suffering financially because of these measures. Some told me that they are taking their children out of schools because they cannot afford the cost any more. Others have stopped payments on cars, etc.
If the Government intends to amend the Act, as was mentioned, to rectify this problem, what are we waiting for? The FF will support that. If the Government does not intend to change it that way, then these South Africans need to know how to adjust and make decisions until the problem is solved.
Working abroad is not easy and surely the idea is not to punish these people in our embassies. I hope these problems can be solved immediately and as efficiently as possible.
The second issue relates to South Africa’s success in signing different agreements with the European Union. My congratulations to the people involved in these negotiations. The problem is that South Africa is not getting all the benefits from these agreements at the moment. The Trade Development and Co-operation Agreement, the TDCA, was signed between South Africa and the European Union. The problem is that this instrument must be deposited in the European Union office in Brussels before we get any advantage from it, and this has not yet been done. It seems the problem is in South Africa - in Parliament, maybe, or in the department. I am not sure where the problem is, but we must solve it to get these benefits. The same goes for the Cotonou agreement between South Africa and the ACP - that is, African, Caribbean and Asian - countries and the European Union. The same is happening there and I hope we can solve that.
Regarding the third issue, South Africa is proud to state internationally that we are committed to human rights. Against this background we became a party to different international treaties and conventions, for example the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child signed by South Africa in 1993 and ratified in 1995. A number of these international instruments unfortunately have not yet been ratified by South Africa, I do not know why. I would like to ask the Minister if there are specific reasons why this has not yet been done, because it causes a problem when one is travelling abroad and is asked why we have not signed or ratified them internationally.
The fourth issue concerns the fact that at this moment it is calculated that 2,6 million in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi are already dependent on emergency food supplies. The sad part is that 54% less land was planted due to the land grab in Zimbabwe and the eviction of commercial farmers, but there are also other factors. If things get worse in Zimbabwe as predicted, this becomes South Africa’s problem, with the possibility of thousands of hungry people coming over our borders.
We surely have an obligation to help, and the question is: Can our financial aid be directed in such a way that it reaches the right people on the other side? According to those who know the situation there, there are a lot of rumours about people not getting what they ought to get because the argument is that this food is for Zanu-PF children only or this food is for this and that food is for that. I would like us to make sure that when we start helping, they put pressure on the government, specifically on the Mugabe government, to make sure that the food reaches the right people on the other side.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson and hon members, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in an enviable position in its attempts to represent South Africa’s foreign policy. Actually South Africa is a paradox of wealth and poverty, of capacity and underdevelopment, of successes and failures, of political and economic transition. Economically and politically South Africa has come out tops since 1994. The successes in these two areas keep sending a clear message to the whole world that racial diversity and harmony in general are attainable.
Our foreign policy in the African context is that of playing a stabilising role, as is the case in the DRC and the Great Lakes. This is made even easier by our political and economic giantism. The Republic accounts for 45% of the GDP of all sub-Saharan members of the development community. This makes South Africa an important continental and global player. Needless to say, some flaw crept in on the events in Zimbabwe. The constructive engagements our country used raised suspicions about the strength of this country’s regional leadership and the strength of its commitment to liberal political values.
Although President Mbeki did eventually stand up and speak out against land invasions engineered by President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, damage had been done to perceptions of his regional leadership. The country continues to get credit, of course, day by day in our President’s brainchild, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. To this end some schools of thought argue that South Africa should capitalise on her success stories and not speak on behalf of the other unattractive continental partners. But we appreciate the unselfish manner in which Nepad is being approached by our President, because in our view it will offer Africa and its leaders the greatest opportunity for achieving sustainable development while at the same time it confronts them with the sternest test of political will.
May I conclude on a more personal note by commending officials in our missions in New York and Harare on the prompt yet friendly manner in which they respectively assisted my fellow church travellers, the Rev Gqokela and Judge Louw, who had lost all their documents while in those parts of the globe.
The UCDP supports the Vote. [Time expired.]
Dr M S MOGOBA: Chairperson, I want to start by saying that the PAC supports this Budget Vote.
In the limited time at my disposal I wish to make the following remarks: International relations play an important role in the diplomatic efforts of the nation. Foreign Affairs is therefore the mirror of our nation. What the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been doing is commendable. However, the country must not bite off more than it can chew. I appreciate that it is not operating in a vacuum. Africa is a continent.
Africa must move in a Pan-African fashion. There must be a Pan-African approach to the problems of Africa, for no single African state can at this time withstand the onslaught of imperialist forces single-handedly. African states must share the problems of the continent according to their capacity.
For instance, every African state should contribute to a peacekeeping mission in Africa where this is necessary. Their contributions must not be left to countries that are perceived to have the economic means. We must liberate Africa from the colonial mentality of dependence. Every part of Africa must work for the economic and social emancipation of the continent. We must create an Africa and a world of interdependence. Every African state has something to contribute and must be made to contribute its own share.
Development must not be concentrated in one area. Western donors must give assistance not only to one country. Donations must be spread throughout Africa so that no African country seems to be preferred or promoted as a big brother and used as a springboard for foreign interest.
Pan-Africanists long realised and declared that Africa must operate continentally as well as globally. This is because those who enslaved and colonised Africa and underdeveloped her always had a global strategy. Even now they loot our raw materials and national resources through this strategy. In the past South Africa was treated as if it was a European country. Even some South Africans here speak of other Africans from the rest of Africa as ``Makwerekwere’’ while not attaching the same label to people from Europe, America or Asia.
There is no doubt that an African country’s foreign policy must really assert the afrocentric view of the world, especially in 21st century. The PAC strongly believes that our foreign policy must flow from the logic of the African situation and contribute to the protection of the fundamental interests of Africa, especially her economic control of her development and of her riches and her security.
The PAC supports this Vote and we just want to congratulate the new chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, Dr Pallo Jordan, and thank the outgoing chairman, who has served this committee for six years. [Applause.]
Mr E M SIGWELA: Mr Chairperson, I am not going to change anything in the adjustment that my bishop did with these settings at the podium. I will change only the contents of the speech.
We live in a world in which technology and scientific advances have made it
possible for humankind to look back whence it came and proudly proclaim,
We have conquered!'' Those who believe in the stories in the Torah will
look at the command in Genesis Chapter 1:28b, where it says,Fill the
earth and subdue it,’’ and will say, ``We have done it.’’
That is true. We know so much about the earth today and have transformed its appearance so much that we feel it is a global village. That is not all. We have amassed so much scientific and technological knowledge for the production of the requisites of life that nobody should be going about hungry and nobody should be going about naked.
But, alas, individualism and greed for personal authority and military might and hegemony over all others by individuals, groups of individuals, sections of nations and individual nations have resulted in gross abuse of all the achievements of science and technology. Our world potential to create plenty, prosperity, security and happiness for mankind has been undermined and continues to be undermined by those individuals and nations that seek to advance their own unilateral desires and designs at the expense of multilateral efforts to create peace and security in the world, making the spectre of world war constantly hover over all humanity, forcing individual nations to redirect resources which could otherwise be used for creating the basic requisites of life towards acquiring the means of protecting themselves.
How can we feel comfortable and happy in the world today when countries such as Pakistan and India in Asia are trading the harshest words of war and baring their most vicious and lethal fangs of combat to each other?
How can we be happy when, in the Middle East, the state of Israel is allowed to flout every letter in international agreements that attempt to create peace in that region, and when all of that is done with the connivance of certain great powers which have an influence in that region, including the only world superpower remaining in the post-Cold-War world?
Indeed, how can we be happy and comfortable when that very superpower treats with disdain all major international agreements that are reached by nations of the world with the objective of creating a secure world? How can we be happy when it is possible for powerful countries to club together and forcibly rally whoever else to their side so as to snuff out of existence any state that they detest?
It is the constant existence of that threat to international security which must inform the manner in which we design our foreign relations policy. But it should not be from a position of fear. It should rather be from a position of strong moral principle as given to us by the people at Kliptown on 26 June 1955, when they said:
South Africa shall be a fully independent state which respects the rights and sovereignty of all nations. South Africa shall strive to maintain world peace and the settlement of all international disputes by negotiation - not war.
This is a strong foundation on which we must constantly stand. We cannot play our role in the international efforts to create a world without war on the basis of unilateralism. We must remain loyal to and promote multilateral attempts at peaceful international co-operation. It would do us good, as it is indeed showing those signs already, for us to strengthen the bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood of nations, first in our own continent, Africa.
The people who gathered at the Congress of the People in Kliptown on 25 and 26 June 1955 did not leave us without guidance on this. The same clause of the Freedom Charter from which I quoted earlier says at the end:
The right of all peoples of Africa to independence and self-government shall be recognised, and shall be the basis of close co-operation.
This, of course, is notwithstanding the fact that the African Union, whose first session will be held in South Africa in July this year, will, as part of its policy, take steps to stop any action within a member state that threatens peace and security in the continent.
This also shows that the people who deliberate in these matters are conscious leaders of society, looking at the current ground and atmosphere of society at every given moment so that it can relate dialectically to that ground and atmosphere.
They do not have minds that remain fossilised in the past, which, most unfortunately for some world leaders elsewhere, is a past of power mongering, authoritarian domination over other peoples and the constant yearning for selfish gratification at whatever cost.
South Africa must continue to work for world peace. The description of Africa by the number of wars that have been and are being fought on its territory must be superseded by the brightness and the happiness of its people as they work together, making Nepad a reality.
The prospects of lasting peace in Angola, the possibility of a peaceful settlement of the complex and compound conflict in the DRC and the prospects for lasting peace in Burundi and Sudan must be encouraged, firmed up and built upon, so that, little by little, we can, alongside the rest of Africa, play our role in bringing the world closer and closer to the ideal of the prophet Isaiah, when he said:
They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks: Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
That will be a world without wars, the world we desire; the world that old comrades like Prof J D Bernal, the former leader of the world peace movement, desired and about which he has written in his book World without War.
We must all support the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Minister, their management and the rest of the staff as they go about throughout the world striving for peace, stability and security for humanity. We support the Budget Vote. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, there are too many private meetings taking place, and we are not giving the members at the podium a fair opportunity to be heard.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, Minister, Deputy Minister, may I also take this opportunity to wish the hon Ebrahim farewell and wish him well in his new venture. We welcome Dr Jordan as the chairperson of the portfolio committee. Knowing Dr Jordan so well, I know there is no seat that is too hot for him.
Before I can start, may I also say that I could not agree more with the hon F Mahomed in respect of the recognition of more women ambassadors. With our very able Minister here being a woman, I am sure she is going to look into that matter seriously. [Applause.]
The MF takes note of the broadened demand for South Africa’s involvement globally, as a result of its achievement that the global community respects as a miraculous achievement that they strive to learn lessons from.
The Department of Foreign Affairs harbours both national and international responsibilities. National pressures of xenophobia and illegal immigration tend to threaten our South Africans who are ignorant of the need to accommodate genuine exiles. Further immigration to South Africa shall not rob us of what we have but may also contribute to educating our nation in ways that are more progressive than those in neighbouring states. Interests here are shared between this department and that of Home Affairs.
International responsibilities and the need to move forward place South Africa as a major global competitor and a strong and faithful ally in respect of building better relations internationally.
In terms of the budget, the MF feels more money is needed to provide much more information and literature relating to South Africa’s foreign policy and the inroads that have been made since the election of the democratic Government. It is hoped that the budget awarded may meet this challenge and assist the department in formulating more effective foreign policy in respect of both global and African relations.
The department’s objectives and programmes, mainly those of administration, foreign relations, public diplomacy and protocol, foreign properties, and auxiliary and associated services, are hoped to be progressive and are supported by the MF.
The MF supports the Budget Vote. [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, is it not remarkable that the two most vigorous debates in this House during the past year have been on foreign issues - the situation in the Middle East and the elections in Zimbabwe? It seems as if these types of issues are more explosive than the many internal issues and problems with which South Africa has to cope.
I ask myself the question: Why? Surely, issues on labour, crime, poverty and even racism should raise more emotion than these often more remote problems. Why are foreign issues such a dividing force in our politics, sometimes much more so than in the sphere of civil life? Is it because foreign issues often serve as a battlefield for our own deepest unresolved differences? Somehow or other, we have reached the maturity to address internal problems in a practical way to find solutions, not always satisfactorily, but at least we have opened debate with issues and practicalities the deciding factor. But the moment we address foreign issues, it is more often than not as if different worlds and backgrounds meet each other on the battlefield.
Dikwels kry ‘n mens die gevoel dat die Regering se buitelandse beleid ook gekenmerk word deur hierdie polariserende tweeslagtigheid. Aan die een kant is daar die besef dat die heil van Suid-Afrika, en Afrika, lê by die lande van die vrye wêreld; lande met ‘n vry ekonomie en gesonde, gevestigde demokratiese beginsels. Aan die ander kant oorheers ou struggle-sentimente en word die finale lojaliteit bewys aan ou strydgenote. Dit lei op sy beurt tot eensydige of weifelende optrede in ons buitelandse verhoudings.
Ek wil drie voorbeelde noem. Wat die Midde-Ooste betref, lê die simpatie en sentiment van die Regering duidelik by die Palestyne. Die Palestyne se legitieme reg op ‘n eie staat word beklemtoon terwyl Israel se legitieme reg op ‘n eie staat terloops genoem word en die sekuriteit daarvan meestal verswyg word.
Oormatige geweld deur Israel word tereg veroordeel, maar ‘n sagte oordeel - of dikwels geen oordeel nie - word gevel oor die volgehoue terreurdade van die Palestyne. Die harde houding van mnr Sharon word verdoem, maar die klaarblyklik geveinsde onvermoë van Arafat om terreur te bekamp glip maar onveroordeeld deur. Dit is dubbele standaarde.
Ook kom die dubbele standaarde na vore wanneer daar in die geval van die Palestyne ‘n volk se reg op ‘n eie land erken word. Dit is ironies dat die Palestyne ‘n eie land gegun word - dit is reg so - maar die Afrikaner nie eens ‘n eie skool of universiteit nie. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Tweedens is daar die houding en reaksie van die ANC teenoor die terreuraanvalle op 11 September verlede jaar. Terrorisme en die afskuwelike dade van geweld en massamoord is veroordeel, maar tog word daar dan weer gevra wat doen Amerika dan nou eintlik wat die mense so kwaad maak. Die onvoorwaardelike steun aan mnr Bush in sy oorlog teen terreur ontbreek.
Derdens is daar Zimbabwe. Oor die tweeslagtigheid en weifeling teenoor mnr Mugabe hoef ons nie veel meer te sê nie. Dit is genoeg om te noem dat op dieselfde dag dat president Mbeki saam met twee ander staatshoofde Zimbabwe se lidmaatskap van die Statebond vir ‘n jaar opskort, keur hierdie Huis die ANC-meerderheidsverslag goed dat die verkiesings wel ‘n legitieme uitdrukking was van die wil van die mense van Zimbabwe.
Ons kan verder gaan. Daar is die volgehoue simpatie vir Kuba waar demokrasie nie bestaan nie, vir Ghaddafi en selfs soms bedeklik vir Saddam Hoesein. Die AEB doen ‘n ernstige beroep op die Regering: laat vaar die neiging om eensydig kant te kies en terselfdertyd op die steun van ander te hoop. Laat nie ou struggle-lojaliteite die rigsnoer van buitelandse optrede wees nie, maar wel regverdigheid, onpartydigheid en wêreldwyd aanvaarde standaarde. Laat die Regering in sy buitelandse beleid só optree dat ander lande se gevegte nie in Suid-Afrika oorgeveg word nie, en laat Suid-Afrika so op waardige wyse sy plek inneem tussen die voorstes van die wêreld. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[One often gets the feeling that the Government’s foreign policy is also marked by this polarising. On the one hand there is the realisation that the welfare of South Africa, and Africa, lies with the countries of the free world; countries with a free economy and sound, established democratic principles. On the other hand, old struggle sentiments dominate and the final loyalty is shown to old comrades. This in turn leads to unilateral or indecisive action in our international relations. I want to mention three examples. With regard to the Middle East, the sympathy and sentiment of the Government clearly lie with the Palestinians. The legitimate right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state is emphasised while Israel’s legitimate right to a sovereign state is mentioned in passing and its security, for the most part, goes unmentioned.
Excessive violence by Israel is rightly condemned, but a soft judgement - or often no judgement - is pronounced on the continued acts of terror of the Palestinians. The hard stance of Mr Sharon is being damned, but the obviously feigned inability of Arafat to fight terror slips by uncondemned. Those are double standards.
The double standards also come to the fore where, in the case of the Palestinians, a nation’s right to a sovereign state is acknowledged. It is ironic that the Palestinians are granted an own country - and rightly so - but the Afrikaners are not even granted an own school or university. [Interjections.]
Secondly, there is the attitude and reaction of the ANC towards the terror attacks of September 11 last year. Terrorism and the abominable acts of violence and mass murder were condemned, but still it is being asked what America is doing to make these people so angry. The unconditional support to Mr Bush in his war against terror is lacking.
Thirdly there is Zimbabwe. About the ambivalence and hesitancy towards Mr Mugabe we need not say a lot. It is enough to mention that on the same day that President Mbeki, together with two other heads of state, suspended Zimbabwe’s membership of the Commonwealth for a year, this House approved the ANC majority report that the elections were indeed a legitimate expression of the will of the people of Zimbabwe.
We can continue. There is the continued sympathy for Cuba where democracy does not exist, for Ghaddafi and sometimes even covertly for Saddam Hussein.
The AEB is making an earnest appeal to Government: abandon the inclination to choose sides unilaterally and simultaneously hope for the support of others. Do not allow the old struggle loyalties to be the guideline for foreign action, but rather equity, impartiality and standards that are accepted world-wide. Let the Government in its foreign policy act in such a way that the fights of other countries are not fought in South Africa again and let South Africa take its place amongst the leaders of the world in a worthy manner.]
Dr Z P JORDAN: Chairperson, Minister, hon members and comrades, first let me thank the members of the committee for their kind words to me and their expressions of confidence. Let me also thank the hon Ebrahim Ebrahim for the manner in which he has led the committee up to now, and I want to take the opportunity to wish him well in his future endeavours in the Presidency.
Barely two months ago crucial talks among the warring parties and countries involved in the Congo conflict were concluded at Sun City. Even though real peace still remains elusive, those talks were an important stepping stone in that direction. Peace in the Congo is now within reach, and it should be everyone’s responsibility to see to it that it is at last realised.
The Congo is emblematic of the relationship that evolved over the past two centuries between Africa and the West, especially with the countries of Europe.
After decades of the most brutal colonial domination, which saw the Congo pass from being the private estate of King Leopold of Belgium to the status of a regular colony, that country attained independence in 1960.
The one and only free election ever held in the Congo was that preceding independence. It is now a matter of record, a record that is daily amplified by fresh exposés, that the results of that election were deliberately and maliciously subverted. The scandalous role played by Belgium and its Nato allies in plotting the overthrow of Congo’s only democratically elected head of government, Patrice Lumumba, is now no longer a deep, dark secret. The role played by these same powers in his arrest and subsequent assassination has now come into the open.
The people of the Congo paid the price for the interventionist policies of the West: three decades of the most corrupt military dictatorship which, in an unprecedented orgy of ``kleptocracy’’, robbed the country and its people blind.
The Lusaka agreement, brokered in 1999, offered the first faint glimmer that the Congolese might at last be given a chance to resolve their own problems and create an environment in which free elections could once again take place.
Since her swearing in as Foreign Minister, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has been at the centre of efforts to bring peace to the Congo. The progress thus far attained owes much to her own personal contribution to that collective effort.
South Africa has committed itself fully to finding a solution to the Congo’s problems, but we insist also that whatever that solution is, it must come from the Congolese themselves. The moneys, the resources and the personpower our country has devoted to this bear testimony to that aim.
The foreign policy of this country has one central plank: creating the space for Africa, African countries and the peoples of Africa to define their own future by exploring and offering viable, indigenously evolved alternative agendas to those imposed on our continent by former colonial powers and their allies.
Nepad was conceived as such a project and deserves our full support. To be effective, Nepad must also entail: the alleviation of the debt burden carried by many African countries, including the cancellation of the debts of the highly indebted poor countries; effective mechanisms to ensure substantial increases in capital flows into the African continent; a reversal of the trend that has resulted in a decline in official developmental assistance; the transfer of technology from the developed countries to Africa; and the opening up of the markets of the developed countries to African products, including our agricultural products.
This country has taken on the responsibility of championing the cause of the poor and developing countries in many of the international fora. At the recent round of WTO negotiations in Doha, it was South Africa’s interventions that brought to the fore that the rules made the world trading system unbalanced and tilted against the developing countries. More importantly, South Africa also argued at these talks that products such as vaccines for smallpox, malaria and other killer diseases should be regarded as social goods, and not as the private property of pharmaceutical companies who may dispense or withhold them against payment of a price demanded by these companies. Regrettably, the international economic environment is still hostile to developing countries, and the constraints resulting from weak economies compound Africa’s capacity to compete in the global market. The prospects of peace in Angola today are far greater than ever before. Angola is one of the continent’s best-endowed countries in terms of mineral wealth, but has been reduced to a virtual pile of rubble. Today its cities are bursting at the seams, overcrowded with refugees and persons displaced from the countryside. The promise of peace can, however, be realised provided that Angola receives support from her neighbours in SADC, in the first instance.
Massive challenges confront the government of that country. Before the displaced can return to their farms and their fields, thousands of antipersonnel mines will have to be rendered harmless. South Africa has already offered its expertise to assist in this respect.
The challenges facing Angola can also be transformed into opportunities, provided South African and other investors have the forbearance and patience required to reconstruct that country’s infrastructure of railways, roads, harbours, mines and processing plants. Every Angolan town and city requires radical refurbishment. The Angolan people require services of every type and variety. The Southern African region should respond to these needs collectively.
The last three decades have witnessed ugly and destructive wars on the African continent. Many of these were stimulated by competition over scarce resources. While development requires peace as a precondition, we should also be aware that the despair caused by underdevelopment and poverty also fuels wars and instability. The Sudan, where a civil war has drained the resources and energies of generations, remains high on the Department of Foreign Affairs’ priority list. Burundi, a poor country that thirsts for peace, might yet emerge as one of South African diplomacy’s greatest success stories. We must make sure that that happens.
In every sphere of international relations, our country is performing far better than ever before in its history. Democratic South Africa is a respected member of the world community, and, despite its size, its voice carries a great deal of weight. As the current chairperson of the Nonaligned Movement, South Africa has been making its own contribution to efforts to find a solution in the Middle East. The Spear Initiative launched by Comrade President Mbeki in January of this year is one among many peace efforts that are being pursued. The South African Parliament would do well to consider what contribution we can make in support of that initiative.
We shall be hosting the first summit of the African Union in July this year. With the inauguration of the AU, Africa will also be adopting new and far-reaching human rights instruments. It is vital that our Parliament ratifies these as soon as possible. Though these charters are, in the main, aspirational, they indicate and will reinforce the growing trend towards democratic governance on the continent. We must employ these and the existing continental instruments to create and extend democratic space in our societies.
We must do this, not as a means of winning the approval of potential investors, but because of its intrinsic value. Progress towards democratisation in Africa is still uneven and it must be recognised that it is the struggles of ordinary citizens and political activists that are largely responsible for the gains thus far registered.
As we have all heard, the responsibilities that devolve on this Ministry and the Department of Foreign Affairs are immense. As a country, we expect the Department of Foreign Affairs to represent South Africa effectively in the world and to fight for our national interest in international forums. The question arises: Is the budget we allocate to this department adequate to these tasks?
The return of the mortal remains of Saartjie Baartman to her home country closes a dark chapter in the annals of Africa’s relations with Europe. The tragedy of Saartjie Baartman encapsulates the inhuman intersection of racial, gender and class oppression. The violence and brutality visited upon this hapless African woman regrettably still finds an echo in the treatment received by African, Asian and Latin American women at the hands of their male compatriots. This violence, unfortunately, only captures international attention on those rare occasions when its ferocity can no longer be ignored.
What self-respecting African man does not feel a profound sense of shame to read reports that an African widow has been condemned to be stoned to death for having a love affair out of wedlock? As men, do we not share a collective guilt for having kept quiet so long about the plight of women in Afghanistan? There the oppressed and exploited women of the developing world hope for our solidarity. Or shall we, as so many have done in the past, pass over the matter in silence, motioning something to the effect that it is only a matter of culture?
The barbarities that have been visited upon humanity under the cloak of culture and of ethnicity and in the name of national pride are surpassed only by those heaped on our heads in the name of patriotism. If the return of Saartjie Baartman’s remains is to have real meaning for the women of Africa, we should seize this as a moment to demand respect from African womanhood, not only from colonising powers and outsiders, but from African men themselves in the first instance.
The events of 11 September 2001 will forever be engraved in the annals of infamy. In the events of that terrible Tuesday we saw not only the face of a dangerous enemy but also the outcomes that can be produced by an opportunistic foreign policy that seeks to exploit the tensions arising from modernisation in a crudely instrumentalist fashion. South Africans, their government and their public representatives all expressed outrage at this crime and we extended our solidarity and condolences to the people of the USA. September 11 was an international crime. The dangers posed by international terrorism threaten every country in the world.
We must accept that conflict prevention and conflict management are not the prerogative of any one country, no matter how powerful it is. The temptation to act unilaterally and marginalise the institutions the international community has created for our collective security could be a very grave mistake.
Let us remember also that it was unilateralism and the tensions engendered by it that led to both world wars. The dangers of unilateralism are already evident on the Indian subcontinent, where there are daily artillery exchanges between two nuclear powers which threaten to escalate into a regional war. Stigmatising certain countries and singling them out as potential targets does not reduce international tensions. It might well serve to make the world more unstable.
The growing influence of parties of the radical right with their viciously anti-immigrant platforms in Europe is not unrelated to the so-called respectability that xenophobia has acquired in the post-September 11 environment. Anti-Semitism, the oldest and vilest of bigotry the world has experienced, has also received a significant boost in the context of the tensions in the Middle East. We should all be vigilant against anti-Semitic and xenophobic rhetoric, as well as the Islamophobia that seems to have taken root among certain nations. The ANC supports the Vote. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairperson, I find this debate very interesting and very useful. In fact, I was just saying that it is very different from the debates we used to have on Health, and it is also very different from the two debates that we have had before on Foreign Affairs.
I think, probably, the reason for this is that as South Africans and as a nation we are beginning to share common values and common interests. Therefore the debate does have large areas of agreement. Obviously, there will always be some disagreements, but even the way in which the disagreements have been expressed in the majority of cases has been constructive.
I do not share the view of hon Aucamp that we are so different and that the debate reflects our unresolved differences. I actually think that if we follow the debates over the years, we will see that we are beginning to get closer and closer together. However, having said that, I will respond to a few of the remarks since I do not have a lot of time at my disposal.
First, I would like to agree with the general thrust that we need to have policies that encourage peace and dialogue in the world, and not war, and that also encourage the development and dignity of all peoples. We should, in fact, use our own common humanity to make sure that there is fairness and justice in the world that leads to peace, democracy and development.
I think, as we deal with conflicts all over the world, it is important that we should not deal with those conflicts in an opportunistic way. We must be guided by principles of fairness and of justice. Where there is no justice, we should be able to say so without being scared that we are going to be seen as not being neutral, because one cannot resolve conflicts if one does not have principles oneself that are based on justice and fairness. That is what is important, whether we are looking at the conflict in the Congo or in the Middle East. We must be guided by those principles.
We must be guided also by the principles of the right of people to self- determination. Therefore we cannot be neutral about self-determination. Every nation has the right to self-determination, and we must be able to say so. Also, in dealing with the Middle East, I think we all accept that Israel exists and has the right to do so as a state.
But what we do not accept is that its existence should deny the existence of the Palestinians and their state. [Applause.] What we should also not deny is that the security of Israel is linked to the security of Palestinians. Israel cannot hope to have security if it unleashes the type of things that it does to Palestinians. It is important, also, for us to say that that conflict cannot be resolved by war. It cannot be resolved by tanks and it cannot be resolved by missiles. It can only be resolved by peaceful negotiations for peaceful coexistence. [Applause.]
An HON MEMBER: What about suicide bombers?
The MINISTER: Surely, regarding suicide bombings, we condemn the loss of innocent lives but, equally, we must make sure that young people in Palestine have hope for the future. If they lose hope for the future, they will take measures that are desperate. Therefore it is important that all peace-loving people must convince Israel that peace, and peace alone, can secure security in that region. [Applause.]
Let me move on to the other areas of the UN, concerning multilateralism and unilateralism. I agree completely with the discussion that says that multilateralism is very important for all of our collective security and collective wellbeing. We cannot allow unilateralism because it does not bring collective security for all of us. Therefore even the fight against terrorism must be led by the United Nations, which is our collective security. We agree with what our President said at the UN and which has been repeated by the hon Boy Geldenhuys. He did request Mr Mandela to allow all of us to call him Boy when Mr Mandela said we should not call people boys any more. [Laughter.] So, to the hon Boy, I would like to say that I agree completely with him that, indeed, it is true that the President said - and we agree with it - that no cause can justify the type of action that was taken on 11 September. But we also agree that he equally said that we must pay attention to conflicts in the world and make sure that we try to solve them peacefully.
Regarding Nepad, I agree with most things that everybody has said on both sides of the House - even the warning that we must not behave in an arrogant manner towards the continent, which will then cause resentment. So far, we have tried very hard to behave normally and not arrogantly. We will continue to do so. I also agree with the hon member who said that the partnership must not be lost or interpreted to mean that it means partnership with the North. Yes, the North is included, but the success of Nepad will really depend on what we do as Africans and our partnerships with the developing world. The developed world is important, but not exclusively so.
Maybe I should just touch on the question of Zimbabwe. A lot has been said and a lot of criticism has been showered over us, in terms of Zimbabwe.
I sometimes say to the Zimbabweans that I should perhaps get two salaries, one from them, because, wherever I go, people ask me about Zimbabwe as if I were the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe. Sometimes I have to remind people that I am actually the Foreign Minister of South Africa, because sometimes they ask us even when Zimbabweans are there to answer for themselves.
Having said that, all I can add is that whatever we do or are asked to do in Zimbabwe, it must not lead to the punishment of Zimbabwean people and must not lead Zimbabwe into a worse crisis. I also think that we must not punish the Zimbabwean people for having chosen the president they did. It was their prerogative. We may not like it, but the Zimbabweans chose the way they did, and we have to live with it. They, too, have to live with it, because they chose that way. It is not for us to choose people in other countries.
But, of course, there are things that Zimbabwe is doing that we do not agree with, and we will continue to say so. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY LEVIES BILL
(First Reading debate)
Mr M E GEORGE: Comrade Chair, hon Minister and hon members, in order to understand the contents of the Private Security Industry Levies Bill, it is imperative to start with a brief introduction and background of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, Act 56 of 2001. It was passed by Parliament in November 2001 and put into operation on 14 February 2002.
But why was it necessary to develop and draft legislation on the future regulation of the private security industry? In the past, the industry opened itself to various irregularities, for example unregistered security companies - what we call ``fly-by-nights’’ - clandestine conduct and low standards. It was deemed necessary to provide principles for the proper regulation of the security industry so as to ensure that the industry did not threaten or harm the national interest, the public interest or the reputation of the industry.
The Private Security Industry Regulation Act is there to ensure effective control over the security industry and promote a legitimate industry that adheres to the principles contained in the Constitution and other applicable legislation. In addition, the Act promotes professionalism, transparency, accountability, equity and accessibility within the security industry. The Act also provides for the regulation of the private security industry by a Private Security Industry Regulation Authority that will act through a council of five members who are required to be independent and not to have any interest in the private security industry.
The cost of regulating the private security industry will be borne by members of the private security industry registered with the regulatory authority. The regulatory council will derive the funds of the authority largely from the imposition of levies upon registered members of the private security industry.
There are no financial implications for the state other than the payment, in terms of the Act, of the fees of members of the appeals committee to preserve their independence.
The Private Security Industry Levies Bill of 2002 provides the legal framework for the imposition of levies and matters incidental thereto. This Bill is intrinsically linked and related to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act. Section 77 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996, provides that a Bill that appropriates money or imposes taxes, levies or duties is a money Bill. Furthermore, in terms of section 73(2) of the Constitution, it is only the Cabinet member responsible for national finance matters who may introduce such a Bill in the Assembly.
On 15 March 2002, the Private Security Industry Levies Bill was introduced in Parliament by the Minister of Finance. It was then referred back to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security for discussion and final approval on 15 May 2002. Today is the final reading and debate on the Bill. In general terms, the Bill makes provision, not only for the imposition of levies by the regulatory council, but also for the use and management of levies, the payment of levies, the consequences of nonpayment and the assessment of the performance of the authorities. For instance, clause 1 of the Bill contains the definitions which must be read in the context of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act of 2001. This clause has additional definitions that are not catered for in the Act. Clause 2 of the Bill empowers the council of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority to impose levies on private security providers and private security officers for the purpose of meeting the general administration and other costs of the authority and the functions of the authority and also to vary the levies, determine interest payable and determine differential levies payable for different categories or classes of security providers by having regard to training level, position, function and other classification, the number of security officers employed by a security business or made available by it to render a security service during a calendar month and the monthly gross income of the security service provider.
However, it is unfortunate that there are parties that intend to vote against clause 2(1)(d)(iii) regarding the issue of the gross income of the security service provider. The following should be taken into consideration. What is important here is to distinguish between the bigger and smaller security providers, to consider the number of people employed and to look at the income of the provider. It is also imperative to realise that the regulation of bigger enterprises costs more. There are more moneys involved. Therefore parties should be cautious not to interpret Clause 2(1) (d)(iii) with too narrow a view. It is also wrong for these parties to create the impression that they are the only people who care about big business. The ANC cares for big business, but also for the poor.
This clause further provides for procedural matters relating to the imposition, variation or determination of levies. The Minister of Safety and Security is responsible for the Private Security Industry Regulation Act of 2001 and is required, in specific instances, to act with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance on matters relating to the imposition, variation or determination of levies.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the regulatory authority to manage and use the levies for the authority, to deposit the levies and interest collected into an approved bank account and to keep proper record of all levies and interest collected and disbursed. The council must submit a budget of estimated revenue and expenditure for the next financial year and a business plan for the following three financial years to the Minister of Safety and Security for approval, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.
Clause 4 of the Bill places certain obligations on registered security providers to deduct and pay the applicable monthly levies to the authority and to notify the authority of certain details of employees, in addition to imposing certain penalties as a result of nonpayment of levies. To conclude, I believe the Private Security Industry Levies Bill is sufficient to ensure, that firstly, the levy funding of the regulatory authority will be well managed. Secondly, the levy arrangement of the regulatory authority will operate in a transparent and accountable manner. Thirdly, the Bill empowers the authority to address any situation arising out of noncompliance with regard to payment of levies.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the National Treasury, the secretariat and the departmental officials for their co-operation and assistance in the drafting of this Bill. I want also to express my disappointment. This is one Bill I thought we, as members of the portfolio committee, would agree on. I am not convinced by the argument raised by the opposition parties that the provision regarding gross income could lead to them voting against this Bill. I agree with them that it is a fundamental clause to the Bill, but I still believe that in the interests of the country and security, they could have voted with the majority party. We therefore present this Bill to Parliament. [Applause.]
Adv P S SWART: Chairperson, it pains me to disagree with our hard-working and able chairperson, especially after I saw how he struggled to defend that position. It really pains me.
When our Constitution demands equality before the law for all and speaks out against any form of discrimination, these are not meaningless, lightly intended remarks. These are the most fundamental underlying principles of our democracy. In particular, as the lawgivers of this country, Parliament should at all times measure the laws we pass in this House against these criteria.
It is true that the greater good for all often impinges on these principles, specifically against the background of our history and the need for transformation to rectify and address the wrongs of the past. Nevertheless, we must always strive to be fair and just to all our people when we make the laws that govern them.
The Private Security Industry Regulation Act passed last year makes provision for the establishment of a regulating authority to regulate the industry, as well as a levy to be imposed to all security service providers to finance the authority. The result is this money Bill before the House today. What should have been an uncontentious piece of legislation not even worthy of debate unfortunately turned out, due to the criteria for the determination of the levies to be imposed, to be a bone of contention for most of the opposition parties.
The bulk of the regulating authority’s day-to-day work, as indicated at the public hearings last year, both by the role-players and by the then board as well as per section 4 of the principal Act, centres on the registration of security service providers and officers, the regulation of these members, in particular regarding adherence to labour laws, the training of security officers and various other functions to do with the services rendered by security service providers and security officers to clients. It was also indicated that the greater part of the authority’s actions were focused on the so-called fly-by-night operators, not the big, well established companies.
It is clear that there is a direct correlation between the number of security officers employed by a provider and the work that needs to be done by the authority. In determining the levies, therefore, the only fair and just criterion would be to take into consideration the number of security officers employed by the security service provider. That should not be just one of the criteria.
Clause 2(1)(d) reads as follows, and I quote:
determine the amount of levies for different categories or classes of security service providers by having regard to -
(i) the training level, position, functions or other classification;
(ii) the number of security officers employed by a security business or made available by it to render a security service during a calendar month; and
(iii) the monthly gross income of the security service provider.
It is the third criterion that is the problem. [Interjections.]
Regarding the criterion of training level it would seem unfair for an officer to get penalised because he took the trouble to better himself. Some of my colleagues will deal with that. The major problem, however, is subsection (iii), referring to the monthly gross income of a provider. The imposition of a levy is nothing but a direct tax, and using turnover as a criterion reeks of unfairness and discrimination against successful companies, in particular - and this is very important - as the work and the financial backup to be expended by the authority bears no relation to the turnover of any company. I will not regard a remark by one of the ANC members that ``the wealthy must pay’’ as valid or conducive to the policy of this Bill and the principal Act.
It goes without saying that various companies, depending on their location and setup, have different overheads and running costs. Being levied on turnover, without taking these factors into consideration, will surely impede further employment increases in a country ridden with unemployment. Lastly and importantly, in spite of my questions to the legal team of the Department of Safety and Security, to the secretariat and to persons representing Treasury, I could not find out where this specific criterion came from. Nobody could tell me. Nothing in the policy memorandum referred to this as being a matter of policy. Even my colleagues from the ANC had trouble expressing themselves on this, and had to caucus during a meeting of the portfolio committee to reach and express their consensus on the Bill as stated today.
I, personally, am of the humble opinion - and this is no reflection on my colleagues on that side - that if this Bill were not a money Bill, which cannot be amended, but just supported or rejected, we, as the portfolio committee that is serious about regulating this authority and about the situation in this country in terms of safety and security, would unanimously have been able to delete this specific subsection. That is my humble opinion.
In the circumstances, the DP cannot be party to such a discriminatory and inequitable principle or the legislation that embodies it. The DP does not support this Bill. [Applause.]
Mnr E T FERREIRA: Mnr die Voorsitter, die IVP sal nie die wetgewing nou onder bespreking steun nie. Hoewel dit nie die enigste rede is waarom ons teen die wet gaan stem nie, het ons in elk geval ‘n beginsel probleem met wat die wet tot stand gaan bring. Die doel van hierdie wet is om deur middel van heffings die Sekuriteitsraad of Sekuriteitsowerheid, soos wat dit nou genoem word, te finansier.
Daar sal heffings gevoer word teen die salarisse van sekuriteitsbeamptes, sowel as teen die bruto inkomste van sekuriteitsmaatskappye. Die probleem is dat die nuwe Wet op Privaat Sekuriteitsmaatskappye, wat ons enkele maande gelede deur die Parlement gevoer het, spesifiek in een van sy kontroversiële klousules enige persoon wat enige belang hoegenaamd in die sekuriteitsbedryf het, verbied om op die Sekuriteitsowerheid te dien.
Daar word dus van die werkers en die werkgewers in die bedryf verwag om die owerheid te finansier, maar nadat hulle hierdie owerheid finansier het, word vir hulle gesê hul mag onder geen omstandighede seggenskap of verteenwoordiging op daardie owerheid hê nie. Dit was vir die IVP onaanvaarbaar, en ons het dan ook teen daardie betrokke klousules gestem. Vandag sê ons vir u ons het nog steeds ‘n probleem met ``taxation without representation’’. Dit is ondemokraties, onbillik en geheel en al onaanvaarbaar.
Party mense redeneer dat dit slegs ‘n heffing is, en nie ‘n belasting nie. Die kern van die saak is dat ‘n mens geld van ‘n sekuriteitsbeampte en sy werkgewer vat vir die owerheid, sonder om hulle enige sittingsreg of enige seggenskap in daardie owerheid te gee. ‘n Ander probleem wat ons met die wetgewing het, is dat een van die kriteria wat gebruik word om te bepaal hoeveel heffing ‘n sekuriteitsmaatskappy moet betaal, sy bruto inkomste is. Dit is weer eens onbillikheid van die ergste graad.
Ons weet die idee van hierdie betrokke klousule is hoofsaaklik om die grotendeels ryk oorsese beheerde maatskappye vir groot heffings te melk, maar in die proses gaan dit egter Suid-Afrikaanse sekuriteitsmaatskappye baie seer maak.
Daar is heelwat Suid-Afrikaanse sekuriteitsfirmas wat baie mense in diens het, wat ‘n baie groot omset, maar nie noodwendig ‘n baie groot netto wins aan die einde van die dag maak nie. Hierdie klousule kan sulke maatskappye bankrot maak of dit vir hulle uiters moeilik maak om te oorleef, al is dit nie noodwendig die bedoeling daarvan nie. Hierdie wet is natuurlik ‘n wetsontwerp oor geldsake en kan nie gewysig word nie.
Die ANC-komponent het dit op ‘n kol sterk oorweeg, soos ons pas gehoor het, om hierdie wet af te skiet. Dit is eintlik algemene kennis vir die komiteelede. Aan die einde van die dag het hulle egter besluit dat dit ‘n té lang proses gaan wees om dit te verwerp en dan die hele proses van vooraf te begin. Gaan maar gerus die rekords van die komiteevergaderings na. Hulle het met tye soos ‘n blaartjie in die wind rondgefladder. Die IVP meen dit is ongelukkig eenvoudig nie hoe ‘n mens ‘n land regeer nie en nog minder hoe wette gemaak word. Ons sal derhalwe teen die wetgewing stem. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr E T FERREIRA: Mr Chairperson, the IFP will not support the legislation currently under discussion. Although it is not the only reason why we are going to vote against the Act, we do in any case have a problem in principle with what the Act will bring into being. The object of this Act is to finance the Council for the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority, as it is now called, by way of levies.
Levies will be imposed on the salaries of security officials, as well as on the gross income of security companies. The problem is that the new Private Security Industry Regulation Act, which was passed by Parliament a few months ago, in one of its controversial clauses specifically prohibits any person with any interest whatsoever in the security industry from serving on the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority.
The employees and the employers in the industry are therefore expected to finance the authority, but once they have financed this authority they are told that under no circumstances may they have any say or representation in that authority. This was unacceptable to the IFP, and we then also voted against those particular clauses. Today we are telling you that we still have a problem with taxation without representation. It is undemocratic, unfair and totally unacceptable.
Some people reason that this is merely a levy, and not a taxation. The crux of the matter is that one is taking money from a security official and his employer for the authority, without giving them any right to representation or any say in that authority. Another problem we have with the legislation is that one of the criteria used to determine the levy which a security company must pay, is its gross income. This is once again unfairness of the worst kind.
We know that the idea behind this particular clause is primarily to milk the largely rich, foreign-controlled companies for big levies, however in the process it is going to hurt South African security companies a great deal. There are a number of South African security companies which employ many people, have a big turnover, but do not necessarily make a very big net profit at the end of the day. This clause is going to bankrupt such companies or make it extremely difficult for them to survive, even though this is not necessarily its intention. Naturally, this law is a Bill about financial matters and cannot be changed.
As we just heard, at one stage the ANC component was strongly considering shooting this Act down. This is actually general knowledge to committee members. However, at the end of the day they decided that it would be too long a process to reject it and then start the whole process from the beginning. Feel free to consult the records of the committee meetings. At times they floated around like a leaf in the wind. The IFP is of the opinion that this is unfortunately simply not how one governs a country and even less how laws are made. We will therefore vote against the legislation. [Applause.]]
Ms D M MOROBI: Chairperson, the private security industry is amongst the industries that are in line with the spirit of Vukuzenzele, on which the rainbow nation of South Africa can capitalise. We are a unique, colourful nation.
As members of Parliament, it is our prime duty to pass laws that will not put our country into jeopardy. As President Thabo Mbeki said in the state of the nation address on 8 February 2002:
The interactions that we have had with various communities … demonstrate that the people’s wisdom in both policy development and implementation can only serve to enrich the quality of the services we render and make people-centred and people-driven development a living reality.
It is of paramount importance that we put legislation in place that will regulate financial management in the national and provincial governments to ensure that the revenue, expenditure, assets and liabilities of those governments are managed.
The objective for the Act is to secure transparency, accountability and sound management of finances, in terms of principle 6 of Batho Pele, putting people first. The funds of the authority include levies and interest, and the council should make submissions to the Minister of Safety and Security for approval and also submit a report to the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, six months before the beginning of the financial year.
How levies are managed is the responsibility of the authority. The authority has, firstly, to manage and use the levies, interest and penalties according to the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, Act 56 of 2001; secondly, to keep records of all levies; and thirdly, to deposit levies collected into a bank account approved by the National Treasury in terms of section 7(2) of the Public Finance Management Act.
The basis for the determination and payment of levies in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, Act 1 of 1999, states that any person registered as a service provider must, within the seven days after the end of every calendar month, pay the authority levy as contemplated in section 2(1).
There are consequences for the nonpayment of levies. The council can suspend the registration of the security business. Secondly, during suspension, the security business may no longer render any service until written permission by the authority is granted.
Therefore it is a necessity to achieve and maintain a trustworthy and legitimate private security industry which acts in terms of the principles contained in the Constitution and other applicable law and is capable of ensuring that there is greater safety and security in our country.
Ke maswabi hore ka ona motsotso ebe ho sana le mekgatlo e sa ikemisetsang
ho otlolla matsoho, ho etsa boikgathatso ho tswela pele ka bophelo bo botle
ho bohle. Mosotho o ne a re: Ha re lekane re se meno.'' Ha re lekane,
diindaseteri tsena re teng ho tsona, empa ho na le ba baholo ho na le ba
dikgwebo tse fatshe. Le hona jwale kgwebong ena re ntse re sa lekane, ha re
meno. Le hoja ba habo rona ba itekile le bona, ho kena ka hara kgwebo ena,
phephetso ya tshebedisano mmoho bakeng sabetter life for all’’, e entswe
ke Moporesidente Thabo Mbeki, empa ho sa na le dihanana.
Ha ke tlo kwala, ke rata ho leboha Comrade Mluleki George ka masene, ke modulasetulo ya masene haholo. Hoja a ne a se masene, mohlomong komiti ena ya hae e ka be le e nngwe ya tse sa sebetseng hantle, hobane masene ana a hae a a thusa. Ke rata ho mo jwetsa nnete, (o kae?), ke Modulasetulo ya nang le bokgoni, o a e kgona komiti ena, mokgupi ona wa hae o wa o kgona.[ditlatse!] Ke re a tswele pele, ke moetapele wa bohlokwa. (Translation of Sotho paragraphs follows.)
[I am very disappointed to realise that there are still organisations that are not prepared to reach out with the purpose of making sure that good health continues indefinitely. A Mosotho once maintained that we cannot be equal unless we have teeth. We are, of course, not equal in the industries in which we are involved. There are big and small businesses. Even right now we are still not equal kin in this business. Although our people have made a great effort to be involved in this business, the challenge of co- operating in the ``better life for all’’ programme was made by President Thabo Mbeki. But there are still those who don’t co-operate.
In conclusion, I’d like to thank Comrade Mluleki George for his wisdom. He is a very wise chairperson. Had it not been for his wisdom, his committee could have been one of those which do not function effectively. His wisdom helps a great deal. I want to tell him - where is he? - that he is a highly capable chairperson. He is able to manage this committee and is able to manage his team efficiently. [ Applause]. I would like to encourage him to go on, he is an important leader.]
Mnr J SCHIPPERS: Mnr die Voorsitter en agb lede, nadat die hoofwet, die Private Security Industry Regulation Act, verlede jaar hewig deur die Nuwe NP teëgestaan is, is die hoofwet met die nodige veranderinge aanvaar. Adv Gaum, die indertydse woordvoerder, het om drie redes die wet teëgestaan. Deur middel van onderhandelinge en besprekings is vier verbeteringe aangebring om dit vir almal aanvaarbaar te maak. In sy daaropvolgende persverklaring sê adv Gaum:
There can be no doubt that the private security industry should be properly regulated. The need for proper regulation is universally accepted by the majority of stakeholders. The public, consumers, security service providers and employees should be protected against the unscrupulous operators in the industry.
Hierdie konvensie bring ons by die tweede en laaste stap om die Hoofwet met hierdie wetsontwerp te voltooi, sodat die owerheid in staat gestel kan word om met sy werksaamhede voort te gaan.
Die groot twispunt in die portefeuljekomitee was klousule 2, terwyl die ander klousules van die wetsontwerp aanvaarbaar was. Die Nuwe NP het om twee redes ten gunste van hierdie klousule gestem. Eerstens, daar is drie faktore wat aangewend word om die heffings te bepaal: Die opleidingsvlakke, posisies en funksies van die beamptes; die aantal sekuriteitsbeamptes wat in een kalenderjaar vir die firma werk; en die bruto inkomste van die firma. Die partye wat nie met hierdie klousule saamstem nie, gebruik die term ``bruto inkomste’’ as basis vir ‘n argument. Volgens hulle betaal ons reeds te veel belasting en nog ‘n belasting kan nie deur die publiek bekostig word nie. Wat ‘n skrikwekkende gedagte. Gerieflikheidshalwe vergeet hulle van die ander twee faktore. Bruto inkomste beskou ek as ‘n gelykmakende faktor. Die firma met ‘n groot aantal beamptes mag ‘n klein bruto inkomste genereer, terwyl ‘n firma met minder beamptes ‘n groter bruto inkomste kan genereer as gevolg van die duisende alarms wat deur ‘n paar beamptes gediens word. Derhalwe sal dit onregverdig wees teenoor die firmas met ‘n groot aantal werknemers. Daar is meer positiewe aspekte in die wetsontwerp en daarom steun ons dit. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr J SCHIPPERS: Mr Chairman, hon members, after the principal Act, the Private Security Industry Regulation Act, was vehemently opposed by the New NP last year, the principal Act was agreed to with the necessary amendments. Adv Gaum, the former spokesperson, opposed that Bill for three reasons. By way of negotiations and discussions four improvements were effected in order to make it acceptable to all. In his subsequent press release Adv Gaum said:
There can be no doubt that the private security industry should be properly regulated. The need for proper regulation is universally accepted by the majority of stakeholders. The public, consumers, security service providers and employees should be protected against the unscrupulous operators in the industry.
This convention brings us to the second and conclusive step in finalising the principal Act through this Bill, so that the authorities can be capacitated to continue with their business.
The big point at issue in the portfolio committee was clause 2, while the other clauses of the Bill were acceptable. For two reasons the New NP voted in favour of this clause. Firstly, three factors are applied in determining the levies: the levels of training, positions and duties of officials; the number of security officials employed by the company for one year; and the gross income of the firm. The parties that do not agree with this clause are using the term ``gross income’’ as basis for an argument. According to them we are already paying too much tax and the public cannot afford another tax. What an alarming notion. They are conveniently forgetting about the other two factors.
I regard gross income as a levelling factor. The firm with a large number of officials may generate a small gross income, while a firm with less officials can generate a bigger gross income because of the thousands of alarms that are being serviced by a few employees. It would therefore be unfair towards the firms with more employees. There are other positive aspects to this Bill, which is why we support it.]
Ms ANNELIZÉ VAN WYK: Chairperson, the Bill before the House governs the imposition of levies on private security service providers and private security officers. It further deals with the management and control of such levies by the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority. This is the last outstanding piece of legislation designed to regulate an ever-growing industry. It aims to regulate and ensure quality service for the many users of the private security industry. The Bill is a logical necessity in order to complete the introduction of the Private Security Industry Regulation Act.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the determination of the amounts of levies for different categories or classes of security service providers. Three factors are mentioned that must be taken into consideration when determining these levies. One is the number of security officers in service of a security service provider. The other two factors, however, pose a problem. It is proposed in this Bill that the training level, position, functions or other classifications of security officers be used as a determining factor. With this, the UDM has a serious problem.
The Private Security Industry Regulation Act was passed, amongst other things, to ensure that security officers are well trained and that inexperienced security officers are not used and in the process endanger their own lives and those of the public.
The practical implications of this Bill are that the better a person is trained, the higher the levy would be that is imposed on such a person. The net result is that we are punishing those who qualify themselves, and in a country where we must encourage skills development, this simply does not make any sense. Furthermore, instead of using the employment of qualified and skilled security officers as an incentive for security service providers, security service providers will now pay a higher levy, the better qualified the security officers they employ are. It simply boggles the mind.
The third determining factor is the monthly gross income of a service provider. Gross income does not reflect the profit of such a provider. A fairer option would have been to look at the net annual profit of a security service provider. However, the principle of differentiating again on the basis of profitability is a counterproductive approach and cannot be seen as an encouraging practice. Furthermore, the Bill is silent on the ceiling of such a levy. The UDM believes that this will be perceived by security service providers as an additional tax. The UDM would have preferred to see a set of criteria that would have qualified a service provider into a certain category. Then there could have been levies for the different categories of providers based on the type of service they deliver, other than on their profitability. We should encourage and reward success, not punish it. We should remember that shortage of finances was not a problem for the previous board and we should not artificially create an income where it is not needed.
The UDM will not be supporting the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, at the outset I wish to apologise on behalf of the Rev Meshoe, who is a member of the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security and has participated in discussions around this Bill but is unable to take part in this debate.
I understand that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction in the portfolio committee with the fact that the committee was unable to amend the provisions of the Bill in view of the fact that it was a money Bill. The result is that members of the committee were obliged to adopt an accept- or-reject approach to the Bill and were unable to propose amendments.
The clause that clearly has created the greatest deal of debate in the portfolio committee was clause 2, and in particular clause 2(1)(d), the central clause relating to the imposition of levies.
The ACDP is on record as being opposed to this clause and accordingly to the Bill. We believe that it is unfair and inequitable to penalise security companies by linking the amount of the levy to the training level and the monthly gross income of the security service provider. We accordingly support the views of previous speakers from the opposition who have alluded to problems associated with this approach. [Interjections.] In South Africa we have a large number of people who require training. The ACDP is of the view that security companies should not be penalised by having to pay higher levies for trained security officers, as this would clearly be a disincentive to train officers. The question also arises whether the objects of the Bill would not be frustrated by encouraging fly- by-night operators who would pay smaller levies due to a smaller turnover and inferior training.
It is regrettable that the whole levy system will only be reviewed in five years’ time, when, in terms of clause 6, the sunset clause kicks in. We trust that the council, together with the relevant Ministers of Finance and of Safety and Security, will reconsider the criteria and the amounts of levies before the five-year period has lapsed, should it become apparent that the industry is being negatively affected by these levies.
In conclusion, and in view of the above, the ACDP will not support this Bill. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the MF applauds the institution of private security services as a system to assist Government’s security organs. For example, the MF notes the load and demand on the SA Police as well as the minimal resources available, which prevent them from performing to the best of their ability. These are factors that private security companies may serve to assist. This sad state of affairs is constantly experienced at most police stations throughout the country, where there are insufficient personnel and vehicles.
The MF also acknowledges the much smaller institutions of the private security industry that are operational in smaller areas and smaller units and applauds them for their valuable services. The MF supports the institution of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority, which oversees the proper and lawful conduct of these bodies. Even the larger organs need to be exposed to a system of checks and balances so as to ensure efficiency and the effectiveness of performance, conformity with supreme law, namely the Constitution, and transparency to the people. Like all private institutions, the private security industry is also subject to taxes and levies as a duty imposed by the National Treasury.
The MF supports the power and authority to impose such levies and taxes by the council of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority. The MF supports the Private Security Industry Levies Bill. [Applause.]
Mr J M NGUBENI: Chairperson and hon members, today is a sad day. It is unfortunate that organisations like the Inkatha Freedom Front, the UDM and the DP support big business and overseas companies that do not support the poor and the exploited.
People are saying today that … [Interjections.]
Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Chairperson, on a point of order! I heard the hon member referring to the Inkatha Freedom Party as the Inkatha Freedom Front, and I wonder which party that is? I request the hon member to take the party very seriously, not just to make a mockery of it. The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, so far as the first point is concerned it is a point of order and I think the hon member will make the correction.
Mr J M NGUBENI: It is the Inkatha Freedom Party. [Laughter.]
Today we are told that only the fly-by-nights should be regulated and big businesses should be left alone to do as they wish. The private-sector security industry is growing at a faster pace than expected. There is no doubt that this industry is important and significant in protecting people and assets from criminals. This is also reflected in the number of service providers in the industry, with the biggest percentage in guarding business followed by armed response and cash in transit respectively.
Apart from the security service it provides, the industry is also a major employer in the country. Unfortunately, this is an industry where often workers’ rights are seldom recognised. It is where men and women work long hours under poor and dangerous conditions. It is also where people are not properly trained and are even denied the basic worker right to belong to a union.
This is the industry where one often finds unscrupulous service providers whose main agenda is exploitation, making a profit and nothing else. Interestingly, this is the industry that absorbed most of the security force members of the apartheid regime. Despite all these negative aspects, it is also important to note that it is where one finds men and women who are at the forefront of the war against crime, poor soldiers who sacrifice their lives in the quest for survival and the fight against crime.
Taking into account that the private security industry personnel far outnumber the SAPS personnel, it would then be grossly irresponsible and criminal for the Government not to regulate this industry. [Interjections.] The Private Security Industry Regulation Act of 2001 fulfils this mandate. The Act’s main objective is to regulate and cover both active and inactive security officers, private investigators and genuine legitimate service providers. In the main, the Act protects the state’s interests, consumers and the industry’s interests.
The Private Security Industry Levies Bill before Parliament today completes and supplements the process of regulating, transforming and empowering the security industry. The regulating authority will be empowered to impose levies on operators and private security officers for the purpose of running the administrative affairs of the industry; impose and vary the levies; determine interest payable and determine differential levies payable for different categories or classes of the security service providers. This process ensures that the regulating authority manages and uses the levies in the best interest of the industry. It will be impossible to transform, monitor and enforce compliance, taking into account the size and the problems of the industry, without adequate funding.
It is ironic and strange that the DP is to vote against this Bill because of different levies payable for different categories or classes of security service providers. The DP policy today is a laughable one of the ``one size fits all’’ variety. [Interjections.] How on earth do they expect a service provider with 10 guards to be levied the same amount as an operator with 1 000 guards? This argument borders on being criminal. In fact, it is even not necessary to think that it is the normal pretence of protecting big business, but a true reflection of the agenda of the DP - that transformation should be opposed at all costs, irrespective of whatever consequences for the country or the economy.
This is a desperate attempt to fight back and maintain the status quo. [Interjections.] It is a shame. [Interjections.] These clowns have not even today realised that they have lost the battle. The DP should come to terms with the fact that transformation, unity and democracy will prevail in this country.
Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of this Bill on determining levies. The Bill forces the regulatory authority to consult all stakeholders, publicise the findings and also seek ministerial approval before any levies are imposed. It is simple nonsense and hypocritical to suggest that the independent councillors of the regulating authority will abuse their authority in exercising their duties. [Interjections.] Maybe these clowns think that these levies are for the National Treasury or some department.
While understanding hatred, anger and disloyalty to this cause of transformation and democracy, fortunately these levies are solely for the purpose of the industry itself to promote professionalism through training, transformation and provision of quality service.
Crime cannot be fought in isolation of the private security industry. This industry, if properly transformed and regulated, will be strategically located in the forefront of fighting the scourge of crime in our country. It is sickening that when strategies to combat crime are put in place, the same pretenders with loud mouths about crime try to derail and frustrate the process. What, then, is their agenda? Is it simply to destabilise and fight back, or maybe to hark Harksen? [Laughter.]
Fortunately this Bill will ensure that the fight against crime is accelerated and the private security industry is totally transformed for the benefit of all South Africans, both poor and rich. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Chairperson, I want to appeal to all of us here to step back a little and think about what we are trying to do. We have a mandate to transform our country into a country that our children will be only too happy to inherit. That transformation does not talk only to the structures of government, to the work that we have to do as parliamentarians. It also talks to the various levels where we interact as citizens of this country. This includes the structures that are in place in this country which are designed to make the lives of our people better.
What we are therefore doing is that we are bringing to this House a Bill that is designed to transform yet another level of our human interactions. We are bringing a Bill therefore which is not designed as an attack on the security industry and which is not supposed to introduce conflict among ourselves. It is part and parcel of the mandate that we have indeed for us to transform our country.
Indeed, there will be certain elements of the Bill that some people would be unhappy about. We never said as Government, and I am sure as the ruling party, that in every aspect and every step of the way as we transform our country, there are no people who are going to be hurt by that transformative agenda. This transformation we are talking about in the Bill, from time to time, will be opposed and some of the measures that we introduce will indeed invite howls of disagreement. That does not mean that what we are doing is wrong or incorrect. This Bill also is part and parcel of those measures that will be opposed by some people.
But what are we doing? Are we engaged in activities that are injurious to the interests of our people, as we bring to this House measures that indeed are steeped in our programme of transformation? No, we would not as Government, and certainly not as the ruling party, bring to this House measures that would attack the interests of our people. This Bill talks precisely to that programme. We want to appeal to people to step back a little, therefore, and look at what we are trying to do. Clause 2 has been presented in particular ways here by some of the speakers. That section is not designed to produce the result that some of the members have spoken about here.
What it is indeed designed to do is ensure that in the end we have a process which will feed into our programme to bring a better life to our people. This industry, we have all agreed, is a burgeoning industry and it is becoming larger and larger by the day. What we need to do is to ensure that in the end the performance of this industry is performance that we can all be proud of.
One needs for that purpose, therefore, to bring into play all the role- players with respect to this matter, including Government, and including us as we are assembled here. Therefore, as we discuss these matters, let us always remember that what we are doing here is part and parcel of our programme to transform our country.
Those who believe they will not support this Bill, purely because of the stipulations under clause two, are not contributing as they ought to be to this transformative agenda we are talking about. If indeed there are problems, we can always come back and say, ``Let us consider, on the basis of experience, whether we ought not to amend what we have on the table,’’ because, at present, I am personally not convinced by the arguments that have been tabled here.
What we are doing is not out of sync with what is being done elsewhere with respect to this particular industry. We are not introducing any measures that are designed, in the first instance, to attack the industry. That is not the intention of the Bill, nor is it the intention of our Government.
The levies that we want to impose are levies which are designed to enable the regulatory authority to carry out its administrative mandate, because Government is not going to put money into the industry, particularly regarding the regulatory authority with respect to this exercise. And the state, because it is not directly required to make funds available for this purpose, therefore is addressing the industry which has profit as its motive.
We want to ensure that we have proper measures in place that are designed to properly regulate the industry. We want to ensure, therefore, that at all times our systems will be subject to transparency. All that we are doing here is to ensure that in the industry itself, there is necessary transparency which, as one speaker said, is at the core of our democratic programme in this country.
We want openness, and the only way in which that openness will be acquired is when, indeed, we have this regulatory authority in the first instance. But there is a specific call on the industry itself through the levies system to bare open their activities in respect of the profits that they make.
By so doing we are not penalising those companies that will make more profit, as has been said by some speakers. There are other things that we look at as determinations are made with respect to these levies. The obligations therefore are designed to contribute to the financial viability of the regulatory authority.
The Bill, I believe, contains sufficient provisions and checks and balances to ensure that the funds of the authority are well managed, and that the regulatory authority operates in a transparent and accountable manner. The authority, therefore, is empowered to that extent by the Bill.
The processes relating to the drafting of the Bill served to stress how important it is for Government departments to co-operate with each other in producing a product that clearly reflects Government policy, as well as producing a product that can be implemented and monitored. The imposition of levies, therefore, is no longer left to the sole discretion of the regulatory body. Government has the responsibility of ensuring not only that proper consultations take place during the determination of the levies but that the levies will be fair and reasonable. The operative phrase here is ``consultations’’ which will ensure that, in the end, what we have on the table are fair and reasonable levies.
I am indebted to the Minister of Finance and his departmental officials for the valuable input and assistance given to my department in the drafting of the Bill. The task was undertaken in a spirit of interdepartmental co- operation, in line with our system of co-operative governance.
At this point, I would like to pay homage to my predecessor, the hon Steve Tshwete, for nurturing this Bill and for the role that he played to bring the matter to where it is, at this time. I would also like to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee and his committee, Mr Mluleki George, who guided this legislation through the committee stage in a very able manner. My appreciation also goes to the individual portfolio committee members who made invaluable contributions. I also wish to thank, of course, the relevant officials of my department and the members of the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority for their co-operation and assistance in this process. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a first time (Democratic Party, Inkatha Freedom Party, United Democratic Movement, African Christian Democratic Party and Afrikaner Eensheidbeweging dissenting). PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY LEVIES BILL
(Second Reading debate)
There was no debate.
Bill read a second time (Democratic Party, Inkatha Freedom Party, United Democratic Movement, African Christian Democratic Party and Afrikaner Eenheidsbeweging dissenting).
The House adjourned at 18:30. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
MONDAY, 27 MAY 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly:
- The Speaker:
The following changes have been made to the membership of Committees,
viz:
Minerals and Energy:
Appointed: Goniwe, M T; Mofokeng, T R (Alt).
Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions:
Appointed: Bekker, H J (Alt); Douglas, B M.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Reinstatement of Enrolment of Certain Legal Practitioners Bill [B 6 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 22 May 2002:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Reinstatement of Enrolment of Certain Legal Practitioners Bill [B 6 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 6A - 2002].
The Committee further resolved that the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development be requested to cause his Department, in conjunction with relevant role-players, including representatives from the legal profession, to revert to this Committee within three months from the date of adoption of this Report by the National Assembly, on possible options available.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Additional Protocol to European Convention on Extradition, dated 22 May 2002:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Protocol.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on Second Additional Protocol to European Convention on Extradition, dated 22 May 2002:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Protocol.
Report to be considered.
- Report of the Portfolio Committee on Sport and Recreation on study tour to Free State, dated 30 October 2001:
INDEX
Item Paragraph
Introduction A
Delegation B
Areas and facilities visited C
Welcoming D
Botshabelo E
Premier Golf Tournament F
Provincial Recreation Indaba G
Bohlokong Stadium H
Puthaditjaba I
Basotho Cultural Village J
Kopano Sports Centre K
Pakisa Motor Cycle Grand Prix Circuit L
Meeting with MEC for
Sport, Arts and Culture M
Sport Academy N
Overall observations O
Conclusion P
A. Introduction
A delegation representing the Portfolio Committee on Sport and
Recreation visited the Free State province from 18 to 21 February
2000. The purpose of the visit was to assess the progress made by
the provincial department with regard to development and
transformation of sport in South Africa. The Committee wanted to
understand the problems and challenges that are experienced by the
province. The Committee also wanted to assess the link and
congruence between the programme of the provincial department of
sport and the national vision on sport and recreation.
The delegation representing the Committee focused on the
following:
1. Availability of sports facilities to all communities, which
include the following:
(a) Provision of sports facilities to communities who were
previously disadvantaged.
(b) Accessibility of sports facilities to all and in all
areas.
(c) Sensitivity to disabled people when building sports
facilities.
(d) The standard of facilities within different communities.
(e) The ownership of sport facilities by communities.
(f) The maintenance of facilities by both the communities and
the municipalities.
2. Accessibility of all sports to all communities, including the
following:
(a) The integration of all sports, irrespective of race and
gender.
(b) The representation of previously disadvantaged people in
the provincial and regional teams of different sports
codes.
(c) The back-up support that is given to financially
disadvantaged sports people who are selected for
participation in national and international tournaments.
(d) The promotion of disabled people's participation in sport
and recreational activities.
(e) The recognition of deserving sports people as role models
and the use of such people as human resources by their
communities.
(f) The utilisation of sports people by community and various
structures in the programme of "Nation Building".
3. Sport Development Programmes that are run in the province.
4. The availability, accessibility and impact of the sports
academies.
5. The relationship between the provincial department, the
standing committee on sport and the local government
structures.
6. Accessibility of all sports to all communities.
7. The relationship between government departments, sports bodies
and other role-players in sport, for example, the business
sector.
8. The role of the community in sports issues.
9. Challenges that are encountered by the sports and recreation
departments.
B. Delegation
The delegation was:
Ms R Bhengu (chairperson)
Mr A Mlangeni
Mr H P Chauke
Mr R D Pieterse
Ms R M Southgate
Mr F T Ferreira
Mr L Myoli (Committee Secretary)
C. Areas and facilities visited
The delegation visited the following areas:
Botshabelo
Bohlokong Stadium
Qwaqwa
Basotho Cultural Village
Welkom
Pakisa Motor Cycle Grand Prix Circuit
Sport Academy at the University of the Free State.
D. Welcoming
Mr T J Khambule, director in the Department of Sport, Art and
Culture, met the delegation at the airport. The delegation was
then taken to the offices of the department for a briefing
session.
In the meeting the delegation was taken through the programme for
the entire weekend, after which the delegation met with
representatives of WASSA-FS, PROREC, MUCPP, FS Sport Academy and
NSC. At this meeting the representatives of the above-mentioned
structures briefed the delegation on their programmes.
The purpose of this presentation was to share with the delegation
information relating to existing sports structures, the programmes
of those structures,and problems and challenges these structures
are faced with (including their relationship with the Department
of Sports, Arts and Cultures).
It became clear from the presentation that there is a working
relationship between the department and sports bodies. There was,
however a feeling of uncertainty within the sports bodies about
the Sports Commission on the following areas;
1. Would the Sports Commission have provincial structures like the
NSC?
2. What would be the relationship between the Sports Commission
and NSC structures if the NSC structures were to be retained?
3. When was the Sports Commission going to start functioning?
The delegation told the meeting that the CEO of the Sports
Commission was going to be appointed probably by not later that
May 2000, and thereafter the SASC would develop a plan of action.
The decision of what was going to happen to the provincial
structures of the NSC was a matter for the NSC, which could be
determined by neither the Sports Commission nor the Portfolio
Committee on Sport and Recreation. Representatives of sports
bodies were advised to raise these issues with the NSC structures
in the province and the MEC for Sports, Art and Culture, as the
MEC is part of the MINMEC, where developments relating to the
Sports Commission are discussed.
The leader of the delegation Ms R Bhengu, concluded the session by
indicating to the representatives what was being done at national
level, particularly on the bills that were in the pipeline,
including the rationale behind those bills.
E. Botshabelo
The delegation, accompanied by the officials from the provincial
department, embarked on an hour-long drive to a facility that had
been built Botshabelo. On arrival at Botshabelo, Mr Sekaledi, the
manager of the facility, welcomed the delegation.
The facility has a synthetic pitch that had cost R2,5 million. The
seating capacity of the facility is 48 000. It has an indoor
facility that is currently used for boxing and karate. The
facility also boasts an Olympic size swimming pool, but the water
has been developing algae because the purification system is not
functional. In addition to soccer, the facility could also be used
for rugby and hockey. Within that facility is an indoor
multipurpose facility, which is in good condition and is also used
as a pension pay-point.
According to the manager, supernumeraries are used for the
maintenance of the facility. He also said that the facility was
reputed to be among the best-maintained sports facilities in the
country. There were plans to upgrade the facility to make it
accessible to the disabled people.
F. Premier Golf Tournament
The delegation was invited to and attended a prize-giving ceremony
in the evening at the end of the Premier Golf Tournament. The
tournament was organised by, among others, Mr Clarence Keyter, a
former employee of the SABC. Amongst those who received awards,
were young golfers from previously disadvantaged communities. What
was remarkable about the event was the inclusion of young female
golfers, who also received awards for their outstanding
performances. This was seen as a step in the direction of making
an elite type of sport accessible to previously disadvantaged
people.
G. Provincial Recreation Indaba
The delegation briefly attended a workshop session on recreation,
organised by the provincial department. What was remarkable about
the workshop was the focus on recreation, which is usually
overlooked.
The delegation was informed by the youth present in this workshop
about a BLOOD TRANSFUSION CYCLING TOUR involving 59 towns. This
tour was intended to raise the profile of the province and to
entrench the Free State as a winning province. The youth was
aiming at encouraging the youth from other provinces to emulate
them.
H. Bohlokong Stadium
The delegation was met at Bohlokong Stadium by the representatives
of soccer, boxing, netball, volleyball and rugby. The leader of
the delegation explained the purpose of the visit to the community
and expressed appreciation for their attendance.
The representatives were then asked to share with the delegation
their programmes and raise issues of concern and problems relating
to sport and recreation that are being experienced by the
different structures.
The following issues were raised by representatives of the
different sport codes:
1. Non-existence of netball facilities, except those owned by
schools, which are not accessible to the community-based
sports clubs.
2. Sports facilities in town are only accessible to the community
from the Botlokong Township after 16:00. This makes it
difficult for people from the township to travel in and out of
town late in the afternoons using public transport.
3. Boxing equipment was removed from a place used by boxers as a
gymnasium, for weight lifters without consultation.
4. Rates charged by the council to clubs for using sports
facilities were very high, and there was no consultation with
the affected sports bodies.
5. Rugby facilities are far from the community.
6. The absence of the Sports Council in Botshabelo.
7. There are more facilities in town than in the African
townships.
Representatives from the community were strongly arguing for the
present government to provide them with as many facilities as
those that are in previously advantaged communities. The
representatives strongly argued that the government should build
facilities for schools and also separate facilities for the
community.
In response to this, the delegation explained the principles of
sports integration and key aspects of sports transformation
particularly that of moving away from the culture of separate
sports facilities for different race groups. It was pointed out
that it is not possible for the government to build facilities for
exclusive use by schools or communities. The government's approach
is to integrate sports facilities so that both the school and the
community can utilise them. Communities are therefore encouraged
to work together and share available resources.
The biggest problem identified by the delegation was lack of
communication amongst the sports structures and also between the
sports structures and the local government. The problem regarding
the use of facilities and payment for needs are to be discussed by
the structures and the municipality.
It is therefore recommended that the Department of Sport, Arts and
Culture facilitate the establishment of lines of communication
between the municipalities and sports bodies in Botshabelo.
I. Puthaditjaba
The meeting was held at night at Phuthaditjaba Stadium. This
facility has a synthetic pitch that cost R2,5 million. It has an
incomplete swimming pool, incomplete bathrooms and toilets. The
change rooms have broken doors and windows. The grass on the
spectators sitting area is very long, with a lot of mosquitoes.
The facility depicted a high level of vandalism and lack of
ownership by the community.
Represented at the meeting were the following codes: Basketball,
Netball, USSASA, SASSU and Soccer. The representatives of these
sports codes raised the following issues:
1. There is no clarity as to whether there is an elected sports
structure in Puthaditjaba. Meetings called to elect a sports
structure are always disrupted by people who claim to be the
sports council.
2. The various sports codes were not consulted when the stadium
was built.
3. The sports codes would like to see the stadium completed and
want to know who the responsible body is for completion of the
stadium.
4. Elements from within the community are vandalising the stadium,
and no effort made to stop that.
It became clear to the delegation that there was a problem of
communication and co-operation between the local community, sports
codes, local government and the provincial Department of Sport,
Arts and Culture.
It was also clear that the local sports bodies had adopted a wait-
and-see attitude on matters affecting sport, particularly on the
issue of the stadium that was being vandalised.
This would need further investigation to ascertain the capacity
levels of the local government structures in so far as maintenance
of sports facilities was concerned. The community also needs to be
brought on board so as to raise their level of awareness regarding
payment for services and community ownership of public facilities.
J. Basotho Cultural Village
The delegation visited the Basotho Cultural Village to see the
indigenous sport aspect of the programme. The Village resembles
the link between Sport, Arts, Tourism and Economic Growth, and is
visited mostly by tourists, who are taken through the living
patterns of the Basotho people, dating back to pre-colonial times,
and how these patterns changed due to the influence of western
civilisation.
The village was earmarked for launching indigenous sport in 2001.
K. Kopano Sports Centre
The delegation proceeded to Welkom to see the Kopano Sports
Centre, and also held a meeting with local sports bodies and
members of the community. The facility is located at a place
called Thabong, in Welkom. It is utilised for aerobics, community
meetings, bodybuilding, weight lifting, boxing and karate. It also
boasts an outdoor facility for soccer and rugby (though
incomplete). It was reported that the local government was going
to add a swimming pool.
The delegation apologised for its late arrival and was
appreciative of the patience of the representatives. The Local
Government Authority, Soccer, the Sports Council and Athletics
attended the meeting and raised the following issues:
1. The community and other government departments who are not
directly involved with sport, do not consider sport as
important.
2. The Kopano Sports Centre is over-utilised, as all clubs want to
use this facility.
3. There is disorganisation and a multiplicity of clubs.
4. Rates for the use of facilities are too high and therefore
unaffordable.
5. Former office bearers of the NSC are not co-operating with the
current NSC office bearers.
6. There are more facilities in town, some of which are not being
used.
7. There is a lack of support for athletes from the township,
therefore making them weaker than their counterparts in town.
8. Facilities do not meet local needs.
9. There is no stadium that has a track.
10. There is no community facility for netball.
The delegation responded by advising the representatives on open
lines of communication between themselves and the local
government, particularly on the issues of utilisation of
facilities and payment of rates charged by the local council. A
meeting was recommended between the former members of the NSC and
the current members. It was also recommended that the Department
of Sport, Arts and Culture should facilitate such a meeting.
The session was ended with information sharing on what was
happening at national level including sports related legislation
in the pipeline and what that legislation was aimed at addressing.
Included in the legislation mentioned was the South African Boxing
Bill, aimed at overhauling the Boxing and Wrestling Act of 1954.
It was explained how the 1954 Act was not in line with the
Constitution.
L. Pakisa Motor Cycle Grand Prix Circuit
The delegation made a brief stop-over at the Pakisa Motor Cycle
Grand Prix Circuit to view the facility, and then proceeded to
Bloemfontein.
M. Meeting with MEC for Sports, Arts and Culture
The delegation was received at the municipal office by the MEC for
Sport, Arts and Culture. Present at this meeting was the 2006 Bid
Committee, which consisted of Mangaung Sports Council, MUCPP,
PROREC, SAFA, Bloemfontein Publicity Association and an airport
manager.
The purpose of the meeting with the Bid Committee was to assess
the preparedness of the Free State for the visit of the FIFA
Technical Committee. The leader of the delegation explained the
purpose of the meeting with the Bid Committee. The MEC addressed
the meeting, taking it through the work done by the Bid Committee.
By the end of the session it was clear that the Free State was
well prepared for the visit.
N. Sports Academy
The delegation proceeded to the University of the Free State to
see the Sports Academy and interact with the personnel there. On
arrival at the university, the delegation was received and shown
around by Prof Coen Nel, Head of the Faculty of Sport Development,
Mr Evert Venter, Director of the Biokinetics and Leisure Science
School for Sport and Dr Marcel Brussow, Head of the Scientific
Department.
The delegation was shown equipment used to assess fitness levels
of sportspersons. Through these machines it was possible not only
to identify dietary needs for sportsmen and women, but also to
predict possible injuries.
The delegation was also taken through the structure of the B.A.
degree in Sport Development. The degree is done over a period of
three years (at the end of each successful year a certificate is
issued giving the learner three exit points). It was also
mentioned that after completion of the first year, candidates
chose from three elective subjects to complete the degree.
Prof Coen Nel told the delegation that the MEC for Sport, Art and
Culture, together with the provincial structure of the NSC, were
very supportive of the Sport Academy. This support was said to be
around the establishment of networking relationships with other
countries who had signed agreements with South Africa.
O. Overall observations
1. There is a need for improving relationships between the
Department of Sport, Arts and Culture and local government
structures so as to deal with the maintenance of sports
facilities.
2. Facilities that have not been completed should be completed so
as to avoid further vandalism.
3. There is a need for strengthening the existing sport codes,
particularly at local level.
4. WASSA is not visible in this province, and therefore a specific
effort is needed to make women sport more visible.
5. There was no mention of sport for disabled people, except to
say that there were plans of upgrading one facility to make it
accessible to disabled people. More attention needs to be paid
to sport for disabled people.
6. Like all other areas, a lot of emphasis is on facilities, as if
facilities are the end product. There is therefore a need for
paying more attention to skills development at all levels, not
only at tertiary level, as is the case with the Free State
Sports Academy.
7. There is a need for the province to develop clear programmes
aimed at:
(a) Development of professionalism in sport.
(b) Amateur sports and sports development, linking these to
sports academics.
(c) Addressing the social imbalances through sport and
recreation.
8. It is therefore recommended that the department of Sport, Arts
and Culture facilitate the establishment of lines of
communication between the municipalities and sports bodies in
Botshabelo.
9. There is a need for the provincial Department of Sport, Arts
and Culture and the Free State Local Government Association to
assist municipalities to build capacity on maintenance
programming skills and to assist in developing a maintenance
plan, which must result in ending vandalising of facilities.
P. Conclusion
The provincial Department of Sport, Arts and Culture has a plan
that is in line with the national agenda of transformation. What
is remarkable about the approach of the Free State, is the link
between the programmes of sport and the unemployment conditions of
the province. The long-term objective of the Pakisa Project is to
boost the economy of the province, therefore the performance of
the project must be monitored to assess the impact of economic
growth. The Portfolio Committee needs to keep in touch with the
Free State so as to assess the impact of this approach on
unemployment and poverty eradication.
TUESDAY, 28 MAY 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly:
- The Speaker:
(1) Mr L Zita has been appointed as chairperson of the Ad Hoc
Committee on Filling of Vacancies on Commission for Gender
Equality with effect from 28 May 2002.
(2) The following paper has been tabled and is now referred to the
relevant committee as mentioned below:
The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Defence:
The Strategic Plan for the Department of Defence for 2002-2005 [RP
34-2002].
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Health on the Mental Health Care Bill [B 69D - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 28 May 2002:
The Portfolio Committee on Health, having considered the Mental Health Care Bill [B 69D - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 76), amended by the National Council of Provinces and referred to the Committee, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Health on the Health Donations Fund Act Repeal Bill [B 20 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 28 May 2002:
The Portfolio Committee on Health, having considered the subject of the Health Donations Fund Act Repeal Bill [B 20 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill without amendment.