National Assembly - 21 August 2002
WEDNESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2002
____
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:05.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, please take your seats.
Mrs J CHALMERS: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House - (1) notes with sadness the untimely death of Comrades Ben Baartman and Wilfred Rhodes;
(2) further notes that -
(a) Comrade Ben Baartman was a former combatant of uMkhonto weSizwe,
an ANC stalwart and a communist to the end; and
(b) Comrade Wilfred Rhodes was a pioneer in building mass
organisations in our communities in the Western Cape and was
instrumental in building the Cape Housing Action Committee; and
(3) also notes that the African National Congress dips its banner in honour of these selfless comrades who have dedicated all their lives to the freedom of the people of South Africa.
Lala kahle [Rest in peace], Comrade Baartman. Lala kahle, Comrade Wilfie!
[Applause.] Mr C W EGLIN: Madam Speaker, I give notice on behalf of the DP that I shall move:
That the House -
(1) deplores the chilling manner in which the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs described critics of Government policy on Zimbabwe as ``subversive’’;
(2) notes that the ANC is adopting the same dismal tactics as the apartheid National Party government in labelling critics as subversive enemies;
(3) further notes that because of Zanu-PF’s land grab policy and the South African Government’s failure to act, the rand has today sunk to R10,81 to the US dollar; and
(4) finds the Government’s paralysis inexcusable in the light of the human tragedy unfolding in Zimbabwe and the damaging consequences for the South African economy. [Applause.]
Prince N E ZULU: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall move on behalf of the IFP at the next sitting:
That the House -
(1) condemns the events around the Inanda Seminary, an exclusive girls institution of higher learning in KwaZulu-Natal, which is under siege as the police and the squatting community wage a battle on their doorstep;
(2) reminds the surrounding community of the importance of the school because of leaders produced there, that it is the home of the Shembe church and that it is the resting place of one of the forebears of the struggle, Dr J L Dube; and
(3) calls on the leadership in the area to ensure the protection of those young girls in their dormitories, the reverence of the place of worship and the peaceful rest of the heroes of the struggle.
[Applause.]
Mr M J G MZONDEKI: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Minister of Labour, the hon Membathisi Mdladlana, introduced a code of good practice on 19 August, which requires companies to employ a minimum number of workers with disabilities;
(2) further notes that this code of good practice will serve as a guide for employers and employees in promoting equal opportunities and fair treatment for people with disabilities;
(3) believes that this demonstrates the ANC-led Government’s commitment to policies aimed at -
(a) reversing all forms of discrimination; and
(b) empowering all marginalised sections of our population;
(4) notes that the ANC commends the Minister of Labour for embarking on this important policy initiative; and
(5) calls on all companies and individuals to heed the new regulations.
[Applause.]
Mrs M E OLCKERS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) congratulates the Premier of the Western Cape, Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk, and his new cabinet on their first 60 days in office and more specifically on returning stability and good governance to the province;
(2) notes with appreciation his vision to build a world-class province that cares and breaks new ground in bringing different communities together to build a common future - as evidenced by new initiatives like the Partnerships for Progress project, which links schools from different communities;
(3) applauds his prioritisation of front-line delivery in the Western Cape through, inter alia, additional emergency vehicles, new Aids pilot projects and an intensified roll-out of nevirapine, innovative tourism initiatives to create jobs and a renewed focus on education as the key to escaping poverty; and
(4) urges the premier and the New NP-ANC coalition government to continue with their efforts to improve the lives of all the people.
[Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr T ABRAHAMS: Madam Speaker, I will move on behalf of the UDM at the next sitting of this House:
That the House -
(1) condemns the suppression of freedom of thought and speech, since this strikes at the very heart of our constitutional democracy;
(2) confirms that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and that the survival of democracy depends on people taking a stand and speaking up, especially when freedom of thought and speech are under threat;
(3) expresses its unreserved dismay that the centralist and isolated leadership of the ANC has forced Jeremy Cronin, SACP MP, to apologise for voicing concerns which are shared by many, about the current ANC leadership’s increasing distance from the needs and aspirations of the majority of South Africans, under the guise of adopting a principled stand; and
(4) is alarmed at the ever-growing list of people, including Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu on the topic of HIV/Aids, who have been berated and vilified by ANC leaders for speaking the truth.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mrs R R JOEMAT: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) a white woman entrepreneur and ANC activist, Ms Wanda Stoffberg,
was physically and verbally abused by a group of white right-
wingers for serving black customers in her butchery in George
last year; and
(b) those involved in this criminal act have not been apprehended by
the police;
(2) further notes that the DA-controlled George municipality has instructed her to close down her butchery;
(3) believes that -
(a) the actions of the DA-controlled municipality of George served
to fuel racial tensions and divisions amongst the people of
George; and
(b) in so doing undermined the efforts of our Government to build
one nation; and
(4) notes that the ANC calls on -
(a) the police to expedite the investigation of this case; and
(b) the DA ...
[Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I will move on behalf of the ACDP at the next sitting of the House:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) that certain home owners are cashing in on the demand for World
Summit accommodation by letting out their houses at exorbitant
prices - some for up to R30 000 a day; and
(b) that these actions have been criticised by the South African
Tourism chief, Cheryl Carolus, and the South African Chamber of
Business for being ``short-sighted'' and ``severely denting''
the country's ``image'' overseas; and
(2) calls upon all South Africans to be responsible and not overcharge visiting delegates, as we are faced with an unprecedented opportunity to market South Africa as one of the cheapest and best value-for- money destinations worldwide, and, in so doing, to encourage visiting delegates to return to South Africa in the future as tourists.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker, I give notice that I shall on behalf of the UCDP move:
That the House -
(1) notes with great concern that -
(a) prisons that have been placed under scrutiny by the Jali
Commission so far have revealed that a good number of
officials, some in high offices, are a disgrace to the
nation;
(b) internal disciplinary hearings they hold are a farce; and
(c) recommendations for appointment teem with corruption and
nepotism while certificates obtained fraudulently are the
order of the day;
(2) further notes that we pray for the strength of the members of the commission to delve deeper into the rot; and
(3) calls on the Minister of Correctional Services to come down heavily on the officers concerned to ensure that our prison system is rid of these clots in the circulation system of our Public Service.
[Applause.]
Ms P N MNANDI: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the ANC Women's League in the Western Cape organised a rally of
local women and woman refugees from the DRC, Angola and
Mozambique on Sunday, 18 August, at Du Noon, Milnerton; and
(b) this rally highlighted human rights abuses of refugees in
general and woman refugees in particular in our communities;
(2) believes that the abuse of the rights of refugees is a manifestation of an endemic problem of racism, xenophobia and related intolerances in our communities;
(3) further believes that this rally represents a conscious attempt to build solidarity among the African people to fight xenophobia;
(4) further notes that the ANC commends the ANC Women’s League in the Western Cape.
[Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr I O DAVIDSON: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes with concern that -
(a) the ANC-run Johannesburg Metro is unable to conduct an efficient
billing system for municipal services;
(b) despite having been in power in Johannesburg for a number of
years, the ANC has still not managed to introduce processes
which will prevent the current chaos; and
(c) many residents receive incorrect accounts totalling hundreds of
thousands of rands, others receive no accounts at all, and still
others receive accounts for properties which they sold years
ago;
(2) therefore calls on the ANC to take urgent steps to ensure that the finances of South Africa’s largest city are restored to good health.
[Applause.]
Mr J H SLABBERT: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes that business leaders in various sectors of the economy have joined forces with the SA Revenue Service (Sars) to help root out tax evaders and fraudsters;
(2) expresses its appreciation to the private sector for the assistance they are providing in rooting out tax evasion and fraud in South Africa; and
(3) urges all businesses and other institutions, not already assisting Sars, to get involved and lend their support and assistance.
Mr W M SKHOSANA: Madam Speaker, I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House notes -
(1) that financial institutions have not made the R11,3 billion available to fund low-cost housing as pledged in the job summit;
(2) also notes reports that banks claim that low-cost housing has cost them R1 billion in debts; (3) believes that -
(a) the reconstruction and development of our country requires
productive partnership between our people, the Government and
the business sector; and
(b) the financial institutions have an obligations to contribute to
efforts aimed at alleviating poverty and building one nation;
(4) calls on financial institutions, including banks, to make resources available for building houses for the poor; and
(5) further calls on all those who have been granted loans by banks to repay them, thus making these institutions sustainable.
[Applause.]
Mr J DURAND: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I shall move on behalf of the New NP: That the House -
(1) notes with amusement the confusion amongst DA councillors with regard
to the DA’s fight back'' slogan, which appears to have become a
fight all’’ slogan, in light of the following incident:
During a special council meeting the leader of the DA in Mogale city,
Krugersdorp, grabbed the microphone out of a fellow DA member's hand
and ordered him to shut up and sit down; and
(2) believes that the DA leadership should call a special meeting to clarify councillors’ misinterpretation of the DA’s ``fight back’’ slogan, and to remind them that it does not mean that they should fight each other.
[Interjections.] [Applause.]
WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) South Africa will host more than 100 heads of state and
government, approximately 60 000 delegates and a large
contingent of international media representatives attending the
World Summit on Sustainable Development;
(b) the theme of the Summit is "People, Planet and Prosperity"
and will be officially opened on 26 August 2002; and
(c) President Thabo Mbeki opened a Summit Art Exhibition at
Ubuntu Village on Tuesday, 20 August 2002;
(2) believes that this important Summit will assume as its primary
responsibility the intensification of the struggle to secure the
social and economic upliftment of all people, and seeking the
realisation of this goal in a manner that protects and preserves
our global environment;
(3) welcomes all WSSD delegates who have descended on South Africa
to attend this Summit; and
(4) wishes them every success in the deliberations during this
historic Summit.
Agreed to.
BANKING SECTOR COMMITMENT TO HELP POOR WITH HOUSING
(Draft Resolution)
Mr J DURAND: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House - (1) notes the banking sector’s commitment to help provide housing funds for the poor and to ensure life cover on mortgage bonds for people, regardless of their HIV status; and
(2) welcomes this decision by the banking sector because it will improve the lives of many people.
Agreed to.
First Order: Filling of Vacancy on Commission for Gender Equality
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON FILLING OF VACANCY ON
COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY
There was no debate.
Question put: That the nomination by the Ad Hoc Committee of J Seroke for appointment to the Commission for Gender Equality be approved.
Question put: That the nomination by the Ad Hoc Committee of J Seroke for appointment to the Commission for Gender Equality be approved.
AYES-274: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Andrew, K M; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Bakker, D M; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Bell, B G; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Biyela, B P; Blaas, A; Blanché, J P I; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Botha, N G W; Bruce, N S; Buthelezi, M N; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Kota, F I; Cindi, N V; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Da Camara, M L; Davidson, I O; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Dhlamini, B W; Didiza, A T; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlali, D M; Dlamini-Zuma, N C; Douglas, B M; Duma, N M; Durand, J; Eglin, C W; Farrow, S B; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Frolick, C T; Gandhi, E; Geldenhuys, B L; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Gibson, D H M; Gillwald, C E; Gogotya, N J; Gomomo, P J; Goosen, A D; Gous, S J; Green, L M; Grobler, G A J; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Heine, R J; Hendricks, L B; Hendrickse, P A C; Herandien, C B; Hlangwana, N L; Holomisa, S P; Jankielsohn, R; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kalyan, S V; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kati, J Z; Kekana, N N; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Landers, L T; Lee, T D; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Lekota, M G P; Lishiva, T E; Lobe, M C; Lockey, D; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lowe, C M; Luthuli, A M; Mabandla, B S; Mabena, D C; Mabudafhasi, T R; Madasa, Z L; Madlala- Routledge, N C; Magwanishe, G; Mahlangu, G L; Mahlangu, M J; Mahlawe, N; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makanda, W G; Makasi, X C; Malebana, H F; Maloney, L; Maluleke, D K; Malumise, M M; Maphalala, M A; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Mars, I; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maseka, J T; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbadi, L M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mbulawa- Hans, B G; McIntosh, G B D; Meshoe, K R J; Mfundisi, I S; Mguni, B A; Middleton, N S; Mkono, D G; Mlambo-Ngcuka, P G; Mnandi, P N; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Moeketse, K M; Mofokeng, T R; Mogoba, M S; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, D A; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Moloi, J; Moloto, K A; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Moorcroft, E K; Moosa, M V; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Motubatse, S D; Mothoagae, P K; Mpaka, H M; Mpontshane, A M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mtsweni, N S; Mzizi, M A; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Ndzanga, R A; Nefalovhodwe, P J; Nel, A C; Nel, A H; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, N E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngculu, L V J; Ngema, M V; Ngubane, H; Ngubeni, J M; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Niemann, J J; Njobe, M A A; Nkabinde, N C; Nobunga, B J; Nonkonyana, M; Nqodi, S B; Nqakula, C; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana-Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, J T; Ntuli, R S; Ntuli, S B; Olckers, M E; Oliphant, G G; Omar, A M; Opperman, S E; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Pieterse, R D; Pillay, S; Pretorius, I J; Rabie, P J; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodike, M N; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Rhoda, R T; Ripinga, S S; Roopnarain, U; Saloojee, E; Schalkwyk, P J; Schippers, J; Schmidt, H C; Schneeman, G D; Schoeman, E A; Scott, M I; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Shabangu, S; Shilubana, T P; Sibiya, M S M; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Slabbert, J H; Smith, P F; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Southgate, R M; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J; Turok, B; Uys, P; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Deventer, F J; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Wyk, A (Anna); Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Vezi, T E; Vos, S C; Waters, M; Xingwana, L M T; Xulu, M; Zita, L; Zondo, R P; Zulu, N E.
Nomination approved in terms of section 193(5) of the Constitution.
Appointment of J Seroke to the Commission for Gender Equality accordingly recommended. [Applause].
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FROM MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM FOR EXCLUSION OF TWO PORTIONS OF LAND FROM KALAHARI GEMSBOK NATIONAL PARK IN TERMS OF NATIONAL PARKS ACT, 1976
The SPEAKER: Order! The report of the portfolio committee, printed in the
ATC of 20 August, requires a technical correction. The portion of the land
referred to in paragraph (a) should read San'', and the portion of the
land referred to in paragraph (b) should readMier’’ and not the other
way around. The corrected version of the report, which we are asking hon
members to approve, is on members’ desks. The ATC will, of course, be
reprinted with the corrected version of the report.
There was no debate.
Exclusion of two portions of land from Kalahari Gemsbok National Park, as recommended by the portfolio committee, approved. [Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Hon members, this is a historic occasion and it is appropriate that we take this decision just before the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
In terms of the agreement, the park and the Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs will transfer approximately 28 000 hectares of land in the park to the San community. [Applause.] This land is adjacent to the southern boundary of the park. It is referred to as the San Heritage Land and the San community will be the owner.
Further under the agreement, the Minister will transfer approximately 30 000 hectares of land in the park to the Mier community. This land is adjacent also to the southern boundary of the park. It is referred to as the Mier Heritage Land, and the Mier community will the owner of this land. [Applause.] Both areas will be jointly referred to as the Heritage Land.
Earlier today I received the full documentation on the transfer of these lands. It is sent to the Parliament of South Africa, in appreciation, from the two communities and I will depositing it in the library. I also commend it to all hon members. [Applause.]
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF STOCKHOLM CONVENTION ON PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF CONSTITUTION
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants approved without debate.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF ROTTERDAM CONVENTION ON THE PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS AND PESTICIDES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN TERMS OF SECTION 231(2) OF CONSTITUTION
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade approved without debate. [Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Order! We will notify the executive of these approvals so that the ratifications can, in fact, be deposited.
DEFENCE BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Madam Speaker, it has taken eight years of consistent work to bring the Defence Bill to this point, its tabling, in the National Assembly. Every year since 1995 the Ministry has forwarded the Bill to the programming committee in Parliament, but because every year since 1995 the Bill was nearing completion, it has been held up.
The problems during the course of these eight years have centred around achieving a balance between what this Government wants to say ideologically about defence in a democracy and the feasibility of implementing that policy. The Defence Act provides the framework within which a military force operates, deploys its troops, is funded and interacts with civil society and other states.
However, the nature of military missions and what determines them often changes more dramatically than the legislation itself. The challenge then becomes ensuring that the Act, whilst designed primarily around a defensive posture and based on peace and security perspectives, does not become a straitjacket for actions related, for example, to the various deployments in peace establishment, peace enforcement and support.
The Defence Act will operate alongside a battery of other defence-related legislation, like the Armscor Act, the Defence Special Account Act, the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, the National Conventional Arms Control Act and the Public Finance Management Act, to name but a few.
Thus, for example, with the ratification of the PFMA and new rules for accounting officers, the chapter in the Bill on the responsibilities of the Secretary for Defence had to be readjusted and aligned with the new Act, itself a long process. It also had to be agreed to by the parliamentary defence committees, then go back again to the state law advisers and last, but not least, the chapter in question had to be retranslated.
The length of time it has taken to draw up this Bill reflects the enormity of the task of defence and the complexity of the process of law. The old Defence Act, written in 1957, reflected the strategic position of defence at the height of the apartheid regime. Whilst some aspects of that Act could be retained with the advent of democracy, the defence posture had been transformed from offensive to defensive. The practical implications of the defence posture find expression in this Bill.
The issue of a new Act was raised formally in 1989 at the unofficial meeting in Lusaka between the old SA Defence Force and MK - uMkhonto weSizwe - and then followed through the inter-related constitutional discussions before the Transitional Executive Council, prior to 1994.
Negotiations around defence and the changing defence policy, as articulated in the White Paper on Defence, were instrumental in the decision to draw up a new Bill and not to further amend the 1957 Act. However, there were some changes that could not wait for the rewriting of the Bill. The most important of all the changes introduced in 1994 was that of civil oversight and the creation of a Defence Secretariat.
The first amendment to the 1957 Act accommodated the Defence Secretariat, and the second amendment placed the Defence Secretary as not just the accounting officer but also as the head of the department. Again, the Department of Defence had to align itself with the legislation from the Public Service. The status of uniformed members of the SA National Defence Force had subsequently also to be aligned with the Public Service legislation.
Some problem areas remain and are still under debate. They include military unions, military versus constitutional justice and clear lines of authority and power. These are still in the process of transformation and growth.
I have tried to give hon members a taste of the complexities of drawing up this legislation. The Bill itself delineates the components of the Department of Defence and sets out their functions. The civilian secretariat for defence enshrined in our Constitution is established, as is the composition of the SA National Defence Force, the Defence Force’s structure and functions re the four services, its head, the Chief of the SA National Defence Force, and his or her functions. How and when the Defence Force can and will be employed is described in chapter 3.
Chapter 4 deals with law enforcement powers of the Defence Force at sea and is in line with the international laws governing maritime affairs and procedures. Chapters 5 and 6 deal, in turn, with the appointment and functions of military police and the Defence Intelligence division.
Chapter 7 deals with what I have previously referred to as a myriad of structures, the hierarchy through which decision-making is taken in the department. Provision is also made for a reserve force council. I highlight that because hon members have expressed concern, in recent months, as to the state of the reserve force. This provision ensures that attention is given to the reserve force.
Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 centre primarily around individual members and how they function within the institution of Defence. Chapter 14 deals with conditions around a state of national defence. Chapter 15 is to do with co-operation with other forces and forces visiting South Africa. Chapter 16 deals with boards of inquiry, and chapter 17 with offences and penalties.
The Bill has been discussed by defence committees since 1994. An interesting reflection on the development of our democracy is to look at who sat on the past defence committees and where they are now. The hon Lindiwe Sisulu and Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula are now Minister and Deputy Minister respectively; Rapu Molekane is one of our ambassadors overseas; Thabang Makwetla is now a provincial MEC in the province of Mpumalanga; and hon members Mpho Scott, James Ngculu, Ntshiki Mashimbye and Zo Kota are chairpersons of parliamentary committees.
Dr Ian Phillips is the adviser to the Minister for Public Enterprises and Mr Linda Mti and Jenny Shreiner are Director-General and Deputy Director- General respectively of Correctional Services. Mr Velaphi Ndlovu made a valuable contribution and has now moved back to KwaZulu-Natal. Gen Constand Viljoen and Pieter Breytenbach are both now in retirement. Hon members Gerhard Koornhof, Douglas Gibson, James Selfe and Petrus Groenewald are still in the House but, sadly, no longer with the committee.
Many decision-makers today are familiar with this Bill and have contributed to its completion. I must extend thanks, yet again, to the Defence Act work group, set up by my predecessor, the late Minister Modise in 1995. Messrs Laurie Nathan, Dave Scrooby, Fink Haysom, Johan Potgieter and Ms Caroline Dreyer must all be recognised for their contribution.
My thanks extend to our previous Defence Secretaries, Mr Pierre Steyn and Mr Mamatho Netsianda, as well as Mr Aboobaker Ismail, not forgetting our two previous Ministers, Joe Modise and his deputy at that time, now Minister Ronnie Kasrils, and, of course, to all the members of the Department of Defence who stuck with this Bill through thick and thin.
Because this Bill embraces such a huge area and deals with the living reality, there will always be changes and amendments to be made. These should be made in a manner that provides stability in the defence environment without rigidity. May I also say to the chairperson of the committee, Ms Thandi Modise, that its completion is a great achievement which was led by herself. [Applause.]
Ms T R MODISE: Madam Speaker, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, … … batswana ba re se ileng se a bo se ile, lesilo ke moselatedi. [It is useless crying over spilt milk.]
After 46 amendments, portions thereof being declared unconstitutional, after the dawn of democracy in this country, the Defence Act of 1957 must go. It has served its purposes; it is outdated.
The Defence Bill of 2001 before us today lays down the statutory basis for the implementation of the new and progressive policies. This Bill incorporates national, regional and international policies. It moves us towards our own understanding of national security, as defined in section 198 of the Constitution of South Africa, which says
National security must reflect the resolve of South Africans, as individuals and as a nation, to live as equals, to live in peace and harmony, to be free from fear and to seek a better life.
The Constitution states clearly that national security is subject to the authority of Parliament and the national executive, and that national security must be pursued in compliance with laws.
Clause 2 of the Defence Bill reflects on these provisions and the ideals stated in the White Paper on Defence. It sets out very strongly the authority and the responsibility for policy formulation and execution. This clause also outlaws party-partisan behaviour and prejudice, and shifts the SANDF radically. It says that the Defence Force must respect the fundamental rights and dignity of its members, and of all persons.
Read together with Clause 105, which outlaws offensive behaviour, these clauses begin to protect not only the individual members, usually those in the lower ranks, but also those of different colours and races within the Defence Force. This clause protects people who usually find themselves in fear of, offended or oppressed by members of the Defence Force.
Clause 105 does not confine itself to verbal and physical abuse only, but goes further, and I quote:
… humiliates or shows hostility or aversion to any other person on the grounds of that person’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language or birth …
It was deliberately phrased widely to protect both members of the Defence Force and people outside of it. This means that anybody who commits such behaviour is guilty of an offence. This also means that people can no longer be subjected to this within the confines of the Defence Force.
Chapter 3 of this Bill is especially important to the ANC. It makes a distinction between things military, which are the responsibility of the Chief of the Defence Force, and things administrative and political, which are the preserve of the Minister and the Secretary for Defence. In its deliberations on this chapter, members of the portfolio committee reiterated their belief in civilian authority. They agreed that the Secretary for Defence is the head of Department and the chief accounting officer. How the Secretary for Defence delegates his or her powers was a subject for a very lively debate, and the committee then drafted the amendment to be what is now reflected by clause 9.
During the public hearings it became very clear that South Africans, together with the members of the committee, agreed that the position of Secretary for Defence must be occupied by a civilian. Emphasis was placed on not having military officers who could jump out of military clothes into civilian clothes and occupy this position. What was referred to as a ``greening’’ period was discussed.
The Bill in Clause 18(2) provides that the President or the Minister must inform Parliament promptly and in appropriate detail of the reasons for the deployment of the SA National Defence, of the place, of the numbers involved, of the period involved, and of how much it is going to cost this country. Clause 18(3) provides that if Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the deployment, the President or the Minister ``must’’ provide the information required to an appropriate oversight parliamentary committee.
The President employs the Defence Force in fulfilment of an international obligation, to go to war, or in a state in which this country is under attack. He might also deploy the Defence Force in support of the police. If he or she does this, he must report to this House.
The Bill also takes into consideration that it is not always possible for the Minister or for the President to deploy the Defence Force. It therefore empowers the Secretary for Defence, in concurrence with the Chief of the Defence Force, to do so, and for this decision to be ratified by the Minister. The Minister is still required to report back to Parliament, and Parliament then exercises its power in terms of whether it agrees with, rejects, changes, or substitutes the authorisation given by either the Minister or the President on the deployment of the SA National Defence Force.
This provision is important because it entrenches the authority of Parliament, as a representative of the people, to hold the executive to account. It also means that all employment will be clearly considered and calculated. Nobody would want to be embarrassed by Parliament rejecting the authorisation or altering such authorisation. It also means that South Africa can never go to war, at least not for more than seven days, without Parliament expressing itself one way or the other.
It also means that Parliament, and not just the President, the Minister or the Chief of the Defence Force, takes the responsibility for deployment, for costs, for injuries and for the body bags that would be involved. It also means that this House has serious powers of war.
The portfolio committee held public hearings on the employment of the SA National Defence Force in support of the SA Police Service. The Constitution, in terms of clause 201(2), provides for this deployment. This Bill elaborates on this provision and states that this deployment must be gazetted within 24 hours. The public hearings revealed that South Africans were against this. We did not want to see the continued deployment of the security forces, and we did not want to carry the burden of the Defence Force being unleashed on the civilian population. However, we are also very realistic that it will happen.
We therefore continued to deliberate on this, and crafted the police powers to be given to members of the Defence Force, as is now reflected in the Bill.
Clause 20 was a product of soul-searching, heated debate and negotiation. It recognises that the Defence Force will be deployed and must be given those powers under the supervision of the police, and that in this deployment they must be protected.
Clause 20 also recognises that the Defence Force must be suitably equipped and empowered when they do border control duty. They must have the power to apprehend, question or, subject to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, be able to arrest and detain without a warrant anybody who is caught doing anything illegal. They must also be able to arrest anybody without a warrant who is seen as an illegal foreigner, and who will then be subjected to the provisions of the Act on illegal immigrants. This clause means that when one deploys, one must equip and one must train and train.
Clause 50 of the Bill deals with the limitations of rights for members of the Defence Force and its employees. It allows for members and employees to be subjected to searches, to inspections, to screening of their communications, to security clearances and to shared accommodation or privation according to the exigencies of military training and operations.
This clause restricts the right to demonstrate, to picket, to petition and to assemble. It limits access to sensitive places and installations. This clause also states that movement may be limited or confined, as the case may be, and that all full-time serving members may be moved from one geographic spot to another.
As a result of conscription in this country, hundreds of South Africans stayed longer at university, some South Africans went into exile, some went to prison and others were seriously harmed. As a nation we agreed that South Africa would only have one Defence Force, and that that Defence Force would be an all-volunteer force.
Clause 89 of this Bill empowers the President, by proclamation, to declare a state of national defence, as contemplated in section 209 of the Constitution, if the country is threatened by war. Clause 90 gives the President the power to mobilise the citizens for service if the country is under attack. This provision also makes sure that people below the age of 18 cannot be mobilised. It also makes provision for exemptions and deferment of people. In other words, there is no way South Africa is thinking of bringing back conscription.
We must, however, look at what other countries are doing. For instance, if we look at Nigeria’s national service programme, it allows the youth to spend time doing community work, to gain experience and to serve. It helps the youth to get out of crime, to begin to contribute and to begin to identify the careers they might want to have in later life.
The Bill recognises the ``one force’’ concept - the SA National Defence Force as a regular force and as a reserve force. Clause 53(2) outlines the conditions of training, the enrolment procedures, transfers, promotions, etc. This actually means that we cannot - we dare not - not change the way we are budgeting currently, because if we do not do so, we will continue to have a reserve force which, whether we like it or not, is not ready to be deployed. This will, in fact, weaken our strength in a way that other countries are strengthened by having reserve forces.
I want to take this opportunity to thank state law advisers Mr Hoorn, Mr Hercules and Ms Bulisile for the great amount of help they gave to this committee. I also want to thank Dr Laurie Nathan for always being there, members of the Department of Defence, and members of the Portfolio Committee on Defence. I extend my appreciation to them all. [Applause.]
Adv H C SCHMIDT: Madam Speaker, this Bill repeals the outdated Defence Act of 1957. It is long overdue and, in certain respects, the old Act is arguably in contradiction to the Constitution of 1996. It aims to give effect to the Constitution, which states that security forces must be structured and regulated by national legislation. Furthermore, this Bill gives effect to the Constitution in that a civilian secretariat for defence must be established in terms whereof accountability is vested not within the SANDF, but within the secretariat.
Furthermore, the Bill gives effect to the “one force” concept in terms whereof the SANDF comprises both the regular as well as the reserve force components. However, in practice it has been proven that this “one force” concept is a totally misguided concept. The reserve force is nonexistent at present, with the exclusion of the leadership. It receives a meagre sum of approximately R3 000 per unit per month in order to ensure its survivability. This state of affairs is, in fact, killing off the reserve force component under the pretext of a lack of funding. We in the DA have expressed our concerns time and time again in this respect. Excuses have been made, not only by the Department, but in particular by the Minister of Defence.
With regard to the regular component of the “one force” concept in terms of the Bill, which, by its very nature, cannot address the following issues, is a Defence Force in which financial priorities are skewed. Approximately 50% of troops are not fit for duty owing to old age and/or illness of which HIV/Aids seems to be a major contributor. There is also a lack of equipment. Buildings are in critical need of repair and buildings in which people have to train and buildings used for storing important equipment need attention. The question is: How can this Bill assist in resolving these issues? The answer is quite clear: only to a limited extent. Political will by the Minister is required, not - as allegedly reported in the media this morning
- spying on labour unions. It is strange to note that Parliament is dealing with this Bill, the cornerstone of the Department of Defence, whilst the updated Defence Review is still not forthcoming. The Defence Bill should follow policy - the updated Defence Review - and not the other way round. However, what is most concerning is the lack of political will by the Minister of Defence to address some of these issues.
There has been acceptance of this atrocious state of affairs without displaying any initiative. We currently have a Defence Force which is totally oversized. Neither the provisions of this Bill nor the political will has been demonstrated in terms of how these issues are to be dealt with.
This department has been turned into a social welfare department and, may I venture to say, an armed social welfare department. This, instead of an effective and disciplined military force. We have troops, albeit sickly troops, lying in units without money to transport these members for exercises. We have a force with too many generals. Whether they are employed outside the four arms of service or not is irrelevant. We have had newspaper reports of generals waiting at home to be retired, and generals who are absent from the force owing to ill health, age or incompetence. What is the Minister doing about this?
No Defence Bill can address all these issues. Only firm political will by the Ministry of Defence, which has been sorely lacking, can do this. We have enough excuses, explanations and theories. We have had enough plans of action and documents. When can we expect to see results in terms of all these abovementioned issues?
The problems in this department have to a certain extent been created by the Defence budget allocation of 41% to the Strategic Defence packages at the expense of other capital, operating and personnel expenditures.
Despite the abovementioned facts, we have a Bill with which we agree. This Bill is an attempt to provide the most fundamental basis for the future creation of an effective and efficient National Defence Force. Membership of the SANDF will be voluntary. However, persons employed in the SANDF will be obliged to remain in service during time of war, a state of national defence or a state of emergency. We agree with that. These provisions are, equally, to be found in most other civilised countries. No compulsory service in terms of conscription is therefore envisaged in terms of this Bill. The DA supports this notion.
It is furthermore important to point out that the Bill also provides for the employment of the SANDF in co-operation with the SAPS on a temporary basis only. We also support this. We are opposed to the permanent employment or deployment of the SANDF with the Police Service in civil society, as this could potentially lead to the militarisation of our community.
Although the Bill provides for a sound basis on which the SANDF can develop, the most crucial factor lies in the will to exercise and fulfil the provisions of this Bill. We have seen many Bills being passed by this Parliament with very few effectively implemented. This Bill should note a new beginning and not only be a continuation of the disastrous state of affairs. The good intentions of this Bill will be lost should the Minister of Defence continue to manage this department as he has done in the past. [Applause.]
Mr N S MIDDLETON: Madam Speaker, hon Ministers present and colleagues, South Africa’s 1993 interim Constitution established what is now known as the SA National Defence Force as the only Defence Force of this country, and that is important. Lest we forget that the Defence Act during the apartheid era regulated the different South African races and that they had to belong to separate armies with separate names and with separate duties. This Bill rectifies just that dilemma. What a crazy world we lived in during those days. This is but one of the discrepancies which this Bill rectifies.
It is unfortunate that the present SA National Defence Force was governed by the old Defence Act of 1957 even after the 1996 South African Constitution came into being. This is indeed unfortunate. Our new Constitution, in section 199, provides that the country’s security forces have to be dealt with and regulated by national legislation. Section 204 of our Constitution further provides that a civilian secretariat for defence must be established by national legislation. Therefore, this Bill represents the national legislation as required by our Constitution.
But what is important and should be welcomed by all of us is that this Bill repeals the old apartheid Defence Act, which divided our armed forces accordingly. The main objective of this Bill is, of course, to regulate the defence of our country in a manner that is consistent with the 1996 Constitution.
It must be pointed out, however, that the provisions of the old Defence Act dealing with military discipline are not being repealed by this Bill. The IFP wishes to make an earnest appeal to the hon Minister to attend to this matter urgently and with no delay at all.
Other important objectives this Bill includes are that the Department of Defence consist of the Defence Secretariat, the SANDF and the auxiliary forces. The Bill will allow for full-time regular forces as well as part- time reserve forces. It recognises the Secretary for Defence to head this department and to act as an accounting officer, as required by the Public Finance Management Act. The main feature of this Bill is that it gives effect to the decision contained in the 1998 White Paper on Defence in that membership of the SANDF will be voluntary.
In moving away from the old apartheid order to the new democratic order, this Bill is very explicit in that no member of the SANDF may prejudice a political party nor further the interest of any political party. This is an important part of this Bill.
For those in Defence who are contemplating a coup to overthrow the Government by illegal means, this Bill is very clear in that no member of the SANDF is obliged to obey a manifestly illegal order to carry out any illegal activity. So there one has it with the coup generals.
The IFP admits that this Bill does not go far enough in regulating the imbalances of the past in our Defence Force - that we must admit - but this is a start which is irreversible. It must carry on and do so quickly. We must continue to transform our national Defence Force so that it can be a happy and proud family of all those who serve our country.
The IFP supports this Bill. [Applause.] Mr D M DLALI: Madam Speaker, today marks a very important day in the defence industry as we are about to vote for the long-awaited Defence Bill, which will completely change the manner in which Defence has been operating.
Let me deal with the following matters in this Bill before us today. The Government has adopted a broad holistic approach to security, recognising the various nonmilitary dimensions of security and the distinction between the security of the state and the security of the people. The greatest threats to the security of South African people are socioeconomic problems like poverty and unemployment.
This Bill then seeks to address the intention of making sure that there is clear co-operation and distinction between the role of the SA National Defence Force and the SA Police Service in their deployment in crime- related matters, like cross-border control, stock theft and others.
The Government has adopted a narrow conventional approach to defence. The primary function of the SANDF is defence against external aggression. The other function is secondary: Where self-defence capabilities are insufficient for certain secondary functions such as peace-support operations and internal deployment in co-operation with the SAPS, additional capabilities may be required. That is why chapter 3, clause 19, of the Bill deals with police powers.
This Bill directly addresses the joint operation between the SAPS and SANDF in terms of clause 20, chapter 3, particularly clause 20(2). The powers and duties referred to here may only be exercised or performed for the purposes of the prevention of crime, the maintenance of law and order, the successful execution of that employment, or the preservation of the internal security of the Republic. This does not include the investigation of crime when it comes to SANDF members employed by the SAPS.
Regarding international peace and stability obligations, this Bill also seeks to address the obligation of peace on the South African Government and that of co-operation with other states. This is why we need to deploy our troops, if necessary, within the region and on the continent as a whole in pursuit of peacekeeping. Conflicts, if not resolved, impact negatively on neighbouring states in the form of a range of nonmilitary threats, and include the spread of disease, large numbers of refugees and displaced people, and cross-border trafficking in drugs, stolen goods and small arms.
Our country is committed to the development of a common security approach in Southern Africa. The SANDF could provide assistance in many ways, such as controlling cross-border traffic in small arms, training, education, and in upgrading weaponry and equipment. This will entail SADC states shaping their political, security and defence policies in co-operation with other states. The Government may be called on by neighbouring states to play a number of supportive roles.
The discipline of our armed forces cannot be compromised. Any member of the force is subject to punishment and prosecution, and all members who are under instruction and training at any defence training institution, unit or base in the Republic are subject to the code.
If an instruction, order or command is not clear, conveyed properly or in the language understood by a particular uniformed personnel member, soldier or troop, who is to blame? Is it the poor soldier or officer giving that order, instruction or command? In my view, all instructions and commands are given to be understood. If not, the poor soldier should not be blamed or disciplined at all.
This takes me to the military justice system in which there are so many common offences, such as absenteeism, disobedience and insubordination. Why are there so many terminations of service within the system? Is our military justice system operating in the manner in which it is supposed to operate in that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done? If not, we need to look seriously at the system itself.
For example, how can one be confident of a system if, as an accused person who is, say, African, one has to appear before a white presiding officer and a white prosecutor, is being charged by a white person, and is also afforded an interpreter who does not understand one’s language and culture properly and has to expect that person to interpret for one? [Interjections.]
Nobody would have any confidence in that arrangement, or in a system which does not deal with simple administrative justice or the rights of an accused person. Are our personnel, or line management, trained or skilled enough to understand fair procedures and administrative justice? Why are there so many Africans who leave or terminate their services within the system? These are all questions without answers that need to be answered, not by a speaker or by the portfolio committee, but by the Department of Defence. Those who are operating the system need to get down to business as a matter of extreme urgency.
The image of the Defence Force needs to prevail. It could happen that the issues raised above are the cause of incidents taking place at various army units and bases, such as the incidents in Bloemfontein, Limpopo, North West and many other areas in which uniformed personnel sometimes resort to arms.
We as the portfolio committee do not know why. We need to be told by those who are responsible. Why are so many former African soldiers not interested in any of the armed forces, or why do they decide to leave or resort to committing so-called offences?
All these questions need to be answered. The Bill before this House today and other pieces of legislation seek to address these matters. If not, we need to look again at other pieces of legislation which were meant to deal with these matters and recall them, amended if necessary. This Bill should also be able to address the issue of different cultures, because it is very clear that within the force itself there are individuals who are not prepared to deal with the fact that there are other force members in uniform who may not share the same culture and who may need a different approach to their culture. On the basis of that there are those who are intolerant of others and who have a very negative attitude towards those who do not share their culture. All these matters may lead to nonco- operation amongst force members. They may also lead to absenteeism, disobedience, insubordination and drunkenness.
These cultural matters need to addressed very urgently in order for the image of the force to be maintained. They also sometimes lead to discrimination by those who do not share the same culture: ``Therefore, I need to discriminate against you, or because of my seniority I can then undermine you’’. If discrimination exists, it needs to be eradicated, uprooted and destroyed completely wherever it exists.
There is no place for any type of discrimination or undermining in terms of cultural matters by anybody in the Defence Force. We call on those who experience this to come forward and use the Constitution of the Republic, which protects all citizens of South Africa against any type of discrimination and racism and against any type of undermining by one person against another.
Never, and never again, will any citizen of South Africa feel and experience any type of racism or discrimination, or racism based on ethnicity; or will any citizen feel that his or her religious freedom has been undermined. All religious freedoms are guaranteed and protected by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
This Bill also seeks to address representivity within the Defence Force at all levels, because it is clear at this stage that representivity is a problem in various ranks and in terms of gender.
When the portfolio committee visited the various units or bases it discovered that there was a serious lack of representivity. One rank, a lower rank, would be dominated by one race and another rank, a senior rank, would be dominated by another race. This, of course, needs serious attention. I hope the portfolio committee will deal with this. For example, how many African navy chiefs, drivers or commanders are commanding or will command our ships and those coming into our waters? How many Africans are being trained to take over and command ships coming into our waters? [Time expired]. [Applause.]
Mr A BLAAS: Madam Speaker, I would just like to react to some of the remarks that the previous speaker made. It is my conviction that members of the Defence Force have moved well beyond any form of discrimination either of the basis of colour, culture or race. If there is one department that has gone a long way in trying to eradicate these constraints it is the Defence Force. Granted there there may still be work to be done. But I consider it unfair to make such remarks in this House; they do not put the Defence Force in the right perspective. Die verdedigingskonsepwet is ‘n stuk wetgewing wat oor ‘n lang periode kom en waaraan baie tyd bestel is. Baie energie, beredenering en dinkwerk ten opsigte van die maatreël het bygedra tot die tertafellegging van ‘n weldeurdagte stuk wetgewing. Weens die omvang van die wetgewing, moet aanvaar word dat praktiese probleme kan ontstaan by die toepassing hiervan. In sulke gevalle sal die nodige wysigings noodwendig aangebring moet word. Die NNP het geen besware teen die beoogde wetgewing nie en sal dit gevolglik steun.
Soos reeds vermeld is, dit is ‘n totale nuwe maatreël. Dis goed deurdink en gedebatteer en nie kontroversieel nie. Dit herroep 24 ander wette geheel of gedeeltelik. Die meerderheid is vorige verdedigingswette of verdedigingswetswysigings. Hierdie wetsontwerp bepaal die samestelling, optrede en administrasie van die Suid Afrikaanse Nasionale Weermag.
Die filosofie agter hierdie wetgewing is reeds breedvoerig aan die Huis voorgelê, en ek gaan nie verder daarop kommentaar lewer nie. Aangaande die inhoud van hierdie spesifieke wetgewing is daar ‘n paar aksente wat ek graag wil noem. Die eerste is die samestelling van die departement van verdediging. ‘n Duidelike onderskeid word gemaak tussen die burgerlike rol en die skerp kant van die weermag. Dit word gemanifesteer in die vestiging van ‘n Verdedigingsekretariaat en ‘n Nasionale Weermag, onder afsonderlike hoofde. Beide die Sekretaris van Verdediging en die Hoof van die SANW rapporteer aan die Minister. Die Sekretaris van die Weermag mag nie ‘n lid van die weermag wees nie. Hy het spesifieke, gedelegeerde magte en verantwoordelikhede. Die Sekretaris is dan ook die hoof-uitvoerende beampte en verantwoordelik ingevolge wetgewing op die bestuur van openbare fondse.
Die weermag vorm die skerp kant van die SANW. Volgens die Grondwet, is hulle veronderstel om paraat te wees om die Republiek teen alle moontlike bedreigings te beskerm. Dit noodsaak dat wapentuig, magspeile en opleiding so moet wees dat dit alle waarskynlike bedreiging, in ag genome sekere risiko’s, die hoof moet kan bied. Die verdeling van die funksies tussen die sekretariaat en die weermag stel egter eise aan hierdie verhoudings. Dit verg toegewyde kommunikasiemeganismes en-strukture om misverstande te voorkom. Aanduidings is dat daar maar van tyd tot tyd spanning tussen hierdie twee komponente is.
Die burgerlike dimensie in die weermag het egter ook voordele deurdat die weermag nie meer ‘n reguit sy eie is nie.
‘n Verdere aspek is dat voorsiening gemaak word vir ‘n voltydse en ‘n reserwemag binne ‘n eenmagkonsep. Dit beteken dat alle lede eenders behandel moet word. Almal is vrywilligers. Lede van die reserwemag is deeltydse lede van ander beroepe, maar moet beskikbaar wees vir magsuitbreiding, indien nodig, en moet gevolglik ten volle opgelei wees vir die aangeduide take en moontlike bedreigings.
Die konsep gaan noodwendig addisionele druk plaas op die reeds beperkte operasionele fondse. Lede moet gewerf en opgelei word, en moet uniforms an ander uitrusting ontvang. Hulle moet in staat wees om hul taak te kan verrig. Hulle is ‘n integrerende deel van die weermag. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The draft defence Bill is a piece of legislation that has been a long time coming, and a lot of time has been spent on it. A great deal of energy, discussion and thought in respect of the Bill has contributed to the tabling of a well-considered piece of legislation. Because of the scope of the Bill, we must accept that practical problems can arise when we come to its implementation. The necessary amendments would have to be brought about in such cases. The New NP has no objection to the proposed legislation and will therefore support it.
As mentioned earlier, this is a totally new law. It has been well thought through and discussed, and is not controversial. It repeals 24 other laws entirely or partially. The majority are previous defence Acts or defence amendment Acts. This Bill determines the composition, conduct and administration of the South African National Defence Force.
The philosophy behind this law has been presented to the House in detail, and I will not comment any further on it. However, there are a few points I want to make about the contents of this specific Bill. The first is the composition of the Department of Defence. A clear distinction is made between the civic role and the sharp edge of the Defence Force. This is manifested in the establishment of a Defence Secretariat and a National Defence Force under separate leaders.
Both the Secretary of Defence and the Chief of the SANDF report to the Minister. The Secretary of Defence may not be a member of the Defence Force. He has specific delegated powers and responsibilities. The Secretary is also the Chief Executive Officer, and is responsible in terms of public financial management legislation.
The armed forces form the sharp edge of the SANDF. According to the Constitution, they are supposed to be prepared to defend the Republic against all possible threats. This means that weapons, force levels and training must be such that they can resist any apparent threat, taking into account certain risks.
The division of functions between the secretariat and the armed forces does, however, place certain demands on these relationships. It requires dedicated communication mechanisms and structures to avoid misunderstandings. There are indications that there is tension between these two components from time to time.
The civic dimension in the Defence Force has advantages as well, however, in that the Defence Force is no longer a law unto itself. An additional aspect is that provision is made for a full-time and a reserve force within a single-force concept. This means that all members must be treated the same. All are volunteers. Members of the reserve force are part-time members in other professions, but must be available for force expansion if needed, and must consequently be fully trained for identified tasks and possible threats.
The concept is, of necessity going to place additional strain on the already limited operational funds. Members must be recruited, trained and issued with uniforms and other equipment. They have to be able to perform their functions. They are an integral part of the Defence Force.]
The employment of the National Defence Force is another issue I want to highlight. In addition to the employment as anticipated in the Constitution, the Defence Force may be deployed under prescribed rules to assist other departments and to effect national border control.
A clear distinction is drawn between border control for crime prevention, which the responsibility of the SA Police Service and only done in support of the Police Service, and national border control, which is the responsibility of the National Defence Force for the purpose of protecting the integrity of the Republic. In the latter case, they have very specific powers.
With reference to law enforcement, under special circumstances military vehicles and personnel of the Defence Force may be used to enforce provincial and national laws. The general rule, however, is that Defence personnel do not have law-enforcement powers. They operate in support of other departments. The military police, however, have law-enforcement powers in respect of members of the Defence Force.
In conclusion, these are but a few aspects of a very comprehensive Bill. One fundamental principle apparent in this Bill is that the rights of Defence Force members are protected in a fair and reasonable manner. The defence structure is not a law on its own. The respective councils, boards and other mechanisms ensure an open and fair compensation to all members without compromising the discipline and requirements of the Defence Force. The Defence Force is focused on defence and trained to do just that, and will only be used for that purpose.
This Bill is a well-thought-through, comprehensive piece of legislation which the New NP will definitely support.
Adv Z L MADASA: Madam Speaker, as we have not been allocated sufficient time for a proper debate, I am, accordingly, unable to do justice to this debate. However, I would like to issue a challenge to the Minister on whether it is prudent to expand the role of Defence, as we have done, without increasing the budget.
It is a relief that we finally have a Defence Bill. There is no doubt, though, that there is room for improvement in the future. There is an ongoing challenge in the text of the Bill to enshrine the culture of human rights constitutionalism whilst fostering discipline. Discipline and freedom are difficult principles to marry. This Bill has attempted to strike this delicate balance. The challenge in Defence is to educate line managers in middle management to embrace the culture of human rights in their leadership.
Chapter 3 of the Bill is of special importance in my view, because it ensures the separation of powers between the Chief of the Defence Force and the Defence Secretariat to ensure a degree of civil military control. It also gives Parliament an opportunity to veto a budget if it deems it necessary to do so.
Although necessary at this stage, we must reach a time when Defence is completely relieved of police functions. The Defence powers of arrest will undoubtedly precipitate territorial tensions between the two forces. In the end, the police must be capacitated to play their role effectively. Having said this, we support the Bill.
Mr K W MORWAMOCHE: Madam Speaker and hon members, the Defence Bill outlaws racism and sexism in the armed forces and proposes stiff jail sentences for soldiers who break the law. It will transform the lives of those in the military. The Bill brings Defence legislation in line with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by allowing soldiers to join unions, thereby giving them speedy and fair access to justice in the military. The Bill will mandate officers presiding over disciplinary cases to hand down maximum jail terms of five years, without the option of a fine, on members who are found guilty.
The Bill seeks to replace the present apartheid legislation as the current Act is a relic of apartheid. The new Bill seeks to bring Defence matters into line with the Constitution, the new military disciplinary legislation and the White Paper on Defence. The present Defence Act is considered an offensive apartheid handbook, because it still refers to terrorists and contains other measures that are no longer appropriate.
The proposed Act does not emanate from, or is a direct response to, the much-publicised shooting at Tempe, but it will undoubtedly punish perpetrators of such incidents.
The Defence Bill is one of three pieces of legislation that aim to make the SA National Defence Force a more culturally sensitive organisation that is home to all, black and white. It aims to ensure that there is not a repeat of racially motivated incidents such as the one which occurred at Tempe.
As I have said, this Bill is not a response to the shooting at Tempe, but it has certainly made the proposed law much more important, if not urgent. Racism is not only confined to the army; it is a societal problem. But surely the army is one organ of state in which one cannot afford the effects of racist behaviour?
When members of the US army were on board a ship, fighting the Vietnam War, black and white soldiers literally fought each other all the way. We cannot allow such a cancerous situation to happen in the SA National Defence Force. Commanding officers who tolerate or, even worse, perpetuate discrimination are not fit for public office and should therefore be removed from such positions. The military disciplinary code and the Military Discipline Supplementary Measures Act have also made discipline more friendly to the accused in military hearings.
Modulasetulo le maloko ao a hlomphegago, Chapter 10 e fa Tona maatla gore ge hlogo ya sešole a kgopela lefelo leo a ka go šidolla mašole gona, e kaba lefelo leo le lego ka fase ga kgoši le setšhaba sa gagwe goba polasa ya motho. Temana ye e fa Tona gore a ka tsebagatša kuranteng ya Mmušo ka maleme a mabedi a semmušo ao a šomišwago ke batho bao lefelo leo Tona a le kganyogago go re a le neele mašole. Tona o tlo nyaka kemedi ya setšhaba seo goba motho yoo ba nyakago go šomiša polasa ya gagwe. Ba ka e šomiša nako e telele goba nakonyana.
Tona o tla boledišana le kemedi ye we go re a ka ba lliša ka bokae ge mašole a šomiša lefelo le we. Seo se ra gore, Tona go ya ka molao wo wa pušo yeo e etetšwego ke ANC, ga o swane le pušo e la ya maloba yoe o rego ge o tsoga o hwetše tšhemong ya gago ba hloma ditente, ge o re ke a botšiša ba go šupetša mabitleng. Seo se ra gore motho mang le mang yoo a lego mo ka puso ye ya demokrasi, Tona ya rena ya Sešole o tlile go boledišana le yena ka mokgwa woo ba tlilego go šomiša naga yeo ya gagwe ka gona.
Go lefelo leo ba tlilego go le šomiša nakwana, ka morago ga ge ba feditše go le šomiša, sešole se tlile go hlwekiša lefelo le we go re mong wa lefelo ge a tlile go le šomiša go se ke gwa ba kotsi yeo a tlilego go hlakana le yona. E ka ba ya go lebala dikolo goba dibomo moo lefelo leo mašole a be go a le šomiša. (Translation of Sepedi paragraphs follows.)
[Mr Chairperson and hon members, Chapter 10 gives the Minister the power to consider requests from the Chief of the Defence Force for land on which soldiers may conduct training exercises, regardless of whether the land falls under traditional leader and his or her subjects or whether it is a privately owned farm. This chapter allows the Minister to make an announcement in the Government Gazette, in two official languages that are used in the area in which the piece of land that the Minister wishes to give to soldiers is located. The Minister will seek out a representative of that tribe or the person whose farm they want to use. They may use it for a long time or for a short time.
The Minister and the representative will negotiate an amount that will be paid as compensation for using the land. This shows that the ANC-led Government is not like previous governments, where it was common for a person to wake up in the morning only to find soldiers erecting tents on his or her land, and when they objected they were threatened with death. This means that our Minister of Defence will negotiate with each and every person who falls under this democratically elected Government on the use of his or her land.
After the temporary use of the land, the soldiers will ensure that it is cleared of all potential hazards that the owner may encounter after they have left. They will ensure that no bullets or bombs are left behind where the soldiers were being trained.]
Ek wil die wens uitspreek dat die pad wat vir die Minister van Verdediging voorlê, altyd skoon sal wees. [Applous.] [I want to express the wish that the road ahead for the Minister of Defence will always be clear. [Applause.]]
Mnr P J GROENEWALD: Mevrou die Speaker, die kort titel van hierdie wetsontwerp sê dit is om voorsiening te maak vir die verdediging van die Republiek, en vir sake wat daarmee verband hou.
Verskeie sprekers het gesê dat hierdie wetsontwerp die ná-apartheidsera inlei. Dit sluit ook die era van die integrasieproses van sewe verskillende weermagte af. Ons moet nou besef dat daardie prosesse afgehandel is, en dat ons moet vorentoe kyk na die nuwe weermag.
Klousule 64 in hierdie Wetsontwerp op Verdediging handel spesifiek oor dissipline. Dit was nog altyd die VF se standpunt dat ‘n weermag so effektief is soos wat sy dissipline is. As daar nie dissipline in ‘n weermag is nie, het ‘n mens nie ‘n goeie weermag nie. Ek het die agb Adjunkminister ‘n vraag gevra na aanleiding van gerugte dat daar mense is wat by die huis sit en wat ‘n vol salaris kry, maar wat nie rapporteer vir diens nie. Die agb Minister het my geantwoord dat daar 17 senior offisiere is wat ‘n salaris van R274 515 per maand verdien, maar nie vir diens rapporteer nie. Dit beteken daar is R3,3 miljoen per jaar, van die belastingbetaler se geld, wat betaal word vir mense wat nie rapporteer vir diens nie.
Daar is gerugte in omloop dat daar senior offisiere is wat selde nugter is, en daarom nie kan rapporteer vir diens nie. Ek wil die agb Adjunkminister vra om hierdie gerugte stop te sit deur vir ons te sê hoekom hierdie mense nie by die werk is nie, hoekom hulle by die huis sit en hoekom hulle salarisse kry. Dit getuig van swak dissipline. Ons moet dissipline terugbring; anders beteken hierdie wetsontwerp niks nie. Ten spyte van alles, sal die VF hierdie wetsontwerp steun. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr P J GROENEWALD: Madam Speaker, the short title of this Bill says it is to provide for the defence of the Republic and matters connected therewith.
Several speakers have said that this Bill ushers in the post-apartheid era. This also concludes the era of the integration process of seven different defence forces. We must now realise that these processes have been finalised and that we should look ahead to the new Defence Force.
Clause 64 in this Defence Bill deals specifically with discipline. It has always been the viewpoint of the FF that a defence force is only as effective as its discipline is. If there is no discipline in a defence force, then one does not have a good defence force.
I asked the hon Deputy Minister a question on account of rumours that there are people sitting at home and receiving a full salary but who do not report for duty. The hon Minister answered my question that there are 17 senior officers who receive a salary of R274 515 per month, but who do not report for duty. This means that R3,3 million of the taxpayers’ money are being paid to people per annum who do not report for duty.
There are rumours doing the rounds that there are senior officers who are seldom sober, and for that reason cannot report for duty. I want to ask the hon Deputy Minister to stop these rumours by telling us why these people are not at work, why they are sitting at home and why they are receiving salaries. This attest to poor discipline. We should bring back discipline, otherwise this Bill means nothing. Despite everything the FF will support this Bill.]
Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Speaker, the Defence Bill is a most comprehensive Bill, touching on almost every aspect of the defence of our country. It replaces and repeals all previous Acts, 43 of them, from 1961 to 1997. These Acts were passed by the South African Parliament and parliaments of the homelands of Venda, Ciskei, Transkei and Bophuthatswana.
The task of integrating the old defence force of the Republic of South Africa, the liberation armed forces and the armies of the homelands was a daunting one, but also one that was undertaken with great zeal and was, relatively-speaking, achieved. There could still be pockets needing integration and fine-tuning.
The Bill has many significant characteristics, but only a few will be commented upon. The Bill brings the Defence Force into line with the Public Service, creating a strong civic administrative wing under the Secretary for Defence. The duties and powers of the Defence Secretariat and the Secretary for Defence are well defined.
The Bill also redefines the role, duties and powers of the Chief of the Defence Force in such a way that he has a clear focus and role as the military, operational and administrative head of the Defence Force.
The other area that is clarified in the Bill is that of the military police. The task of the military wing in the sphere of policing is crucial, particularly when it is expected in modern times that the country and the world will be living in peace times. Internal peacekeeping becomes very important, and a relationship with the normal police department is necessary.
The army in modern times is expected to contribute to peace in neighbouring states. With the advent of the African Union, the country needs a well- trained army to discharge its responsibility in maintaining peace and development in Africa. This represents a new area of responsibility, which is exciting and challenging.
The Defence Bill will modernise our armed forces and enable them to reflect the values enshrined in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The PAC supports this Bill.
Mr S B NTULI: Madam Speaker, colleagues, hon Minister of Defence and other Ministers, and members, I am delighted to participate in this debate today because it is historic in the sense that it takes place in August, the month in which women of this country marched to protest against the discriminatory pass laws and apartheid.
This debate is also significant in the sense that this is the month in which this Bill is passed, and we can proudly say today after so many years that there is transformation in the SANDF. For the first time we have women generals: Maj Gen Sedibe and Maj Gen Van der Poel. [Applause.]
I read in the paper about the initiative by Portnet, one of the parastatals, to have a ship sailed and manned by women only sailing in South African waters. This also shows that if those women in the 1950s were marching at the time to identify themselves with the struggle, today they should see that things did not just end there with the pass laws, because even now there are skills and opportunities opening up to them. We congratulate them. [Applause.]
Therefore, we in the ANC obviously commend and congratulate the Defence Force, and congratulate Portnet on its venture. We also urge the Department of Defence to look into the environmental and working conditions of women to enable them to perform their duties in a way that is equivalent to that of their male counterparts.
The Bill states that the functions of the Chief of the SANDF are, among other things, that he or she ``is responsible for the development of a nonracial, nonsexist and nondiscriminatory institutional culture within the Defence Force in accordance with the Constitution and departmental policy on equal opportunity and affirmative action’’.
In order for this function to become realisable, it means that the Department of Defence should do certain things, among other things, with regard to transformation. In terms of transformation there are areas which warrant serious attention in order to improve the image and performance of our Defence Force. An example regarding regimental sergeant majors is that there is a dire need for the department to look at the role and composition of the ranks component of regimental sergeant majors within the SANDF and to see if it is in line with the transformation agenda envisaged in this Defence Bill and espoused in the Constitution.
The department should look into whether this unit or level of authority is representative enough. Does it have equity? Does redress apply in this area? Most importantly, the department should look into whether the unit lives up to its functional expectations.
Another important aspect of transformation is the need for the correct ranking of Defence Force members. In 1955 the ANC crafted the Freedom Charter, which states in the 8th heading that the doors of learning and culture shall be opened to all. Thus, the question the Department of Defence needs to answer is: Is the department doing enough to create space for skills development for its members? Alternatively, does the Department of Defence create opportunities for serving members of the Defence Force, excluding those who are working as civilians in the Defence Force? Does the department create opportunities for serving members to have a career path beyond their time of service?
Once these serving members of the Defence Force acquire or pass military- related studies, does the SANDF appreciate them and rank them accordingly? It is important that this be done in order to boost the soldiers’ morale, improve their socioeconomic situation and enhance their professional soldiering skills. This is why the Freedom Charter’s statement that the doors of learning and culture shall be opened to all is relevant.
Appropriate ranking will also facilitate transformation within the Defence Force establishment to ensure gender equity, affirmative action, representivity, and the whole transformation of the Defence Force in order for it to be in line with our Constitution.
Appropriate ranking will also accelerate transformation in the reserve force, as we are aware that in respective areas one finds that the reserve force, when operating on a mission, is not reflective of society. We have already had reports of some of the negative acts that emanate from these kinds of operations that lack representivity.
I also want to turn to civic education. This unit needs to be revisited. As part of the transformation process, society is now exposed to different cultures, religions, genders and different practices which constitute societal diversity.
We are also called upon to play a role in Africa through the Nepad programme. In addition to the professional capabilities of our Defence Force, issues of gender equity, human rights and labour rights are becoming more pertinent.
I will now focus on the functions of the military police. The Bill provides clear guidance on how the military police should execute their work. For the purposes of enforcing this Act or any other law, including the common law in so far as it applies to the department, any member or employee of the department, or to any person, area, land or premises under the protection or control of the Department, a member of the military police should help in the prevention and combating of crime, the investigation of offences and the maintenance of law and order.
Whilst exercising these powers, the military police should act with the necessary precaution. For example, once they arrest a criminal, they should hand the criminal over to the police as soon as possible so that this does not actually have implications for the limited resources of the Defence Force. [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Speaker, it must have been a mammoth task to draw up this unique piece of legislation. The mere fact that about 50 separate Acts have been consolidated into one standard Bill on the SANDF is proof positive, and this document provides everyone in South Africa with a blueprint of our National Defence Force. The AEB congratulates everyone concerned and we support this Bill.
We have three requests. In the first instance, clause 19 of the Bill provides that units of the Defence Force may be employed to help the Police Service in the combating of crime and the reservation of law and order within the Republic. Clause 35 states that the intelligence division must co-operate with any other intelligence service or body created by or under any other law.
Die AEB vra dat die Weermag se intelligensiediens aangewend word om eens en vir altyd die magte wat agter plaasmoorde in Suid-Afrika werksaam is, te ontmasker. Pas verlede week nog, is ‘n regse komplot teen die staat ontbloot en die verdagtes gearresteer. Proaktief, voordat enige bose daad nog gepleeg kon word, is opgetree.
Waarom kan dieselfde uitnemendheid nie aangewend word om plaasmoorde eens en vir altyd hok te slaan nie? Gekoördineerde aksie tussen die polisie, die weermag en die intelligensiediens is noodsaaklik om agter die bron van die aanvalle te kom. Om die uitvoerders van plaasaanvalle te arresteer, is nie genoeg nie. Die beplanners en instigeerders moet ontmasker en uitgeskakel word.
Tweedens beplan die SANW nuwe rangkentekens regdeur, en teen hoë koste. In die lig van die Minister se antwoord verlede week in hierdie Huis op ‘n vraag van die AEB dat die burgermag begrotingsgewys aan die agterspeen moet suig, doen die AEB ‘n beroep op die Minister. Laat vaar die nuwe rangtekens en wend daardie miljoene aan vir die opleiding van ons reserwemagte.
In artikel 74 maak die wet voorsiening vir reëls en regulasies in verband met medaljes en dekorasies. Onlangs is medaljes van 45 verdienstelike gevalle weerhou, omdat daar, soos in die pers beweer is, nie genoeg swart kandidate was vir medaljes nie. Kan die Minister duidelik sê of die reëls wat kragtens artikel 74 geld, meriete as maatstaf gaan hê, sodat elkeen wat ‘n medalje verdien, dit wel kry, en sodat elkeen wat dit kry, weet dat hy het dit verdien. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The AEB asks that the Defence Force’s intelligence services be used to uncover once and for all the forces that are behind farm murders in South Africa. Just last week a right-wing plot against the state was uncovered and the suspects were arrested. Action was taken proactively before any evil deed could even be committed.
Why can the same excellence not be applied to eliminate farm murders once and for all? Co-ordinated action between the police, the Defence Force and the intelligence services is essential to discover the source of the attacks. It is not enough to arrest the perpetrators of farm murders. The planners and instigators must be uncovered and eliminated.
Secondly, the SA National Defence Force is planning new rank insignia throughout, and at great cost. In the light of the Minister’s reply last week in this House to a question from the AEB that the citizen force suckles from the hindmost teat as far as the budget is concerned, the AEB wants to make an appeal to the Minister. He should give up the new rank insignia and apply those millions to the training of our reserve forces.
Section 74 of the Act makes provision for rules and regulations in connection with medals and decorations. Recently medals were withheld from 45 deserving cases because, as was alleged in the press, there were not enough black candidates for medals. Can the Minister clearly say whether the rules applicable in terms of clause 74 will have merit as a yardstick so that everyone who deserves a medal will get one and that everyone who gets a medal will know that he or she deserves it?]
Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Madam Speaker, Minister, members, this Bill is necessary to regulate the activities of the Department of Defence, the Defence Secretariat and the SA National Defence Force. It covers many aspects relating to defence, and I hope that it will enable the SANDF to carry out its constitutional mandate to ``defend and protect the Republic, its territorial integrity and its people in accordance with the Constitution’’.
The Bill covers other functions, such as assistance to the SA Police Service. We are aware that this is not an ideal task for the SANDF. At this stage, however, the SAPS do not have the capacity to effectively combat all forms of crime, specifically cross-border crime. The committee made provision for this in clause 18(1)(d) of the Bill, in terms of which the President may employ the SANDF to effect national border control. This must be carried out in conjunction with clause 20(11) which states that members of the Defence Force must receive appropriate training prior to such employment and must be equipped accordingly. Armed with this legislation, the SANDF may legitimately protect our citizens on the borders of our country.
Clause 89 of this Bill also allows the President to instruct the SANDF to carry out its constitutional mandate, as mentioned earlier, by proclaiming a state of national defence. The state of national defence may be declared not only during war, or armed attack or conflict, but includes other contingencies such as biological or chemical warfare and even cyber attack. As we move deeper into the new millennium, this provision may need to be revised in the future to make provision for biological manipulation of human beings such as in cloning; in robot and nanotechnology; and even in conflicts in and for control over outer space. Military terminology in the United States already includes terms such as satellite defence systems, microrobots, unmanned armoured vehicles and performance-enhancing exoskeletons.
The new world is one in which the nation-state as we know it is playing a diminishing role, and organisations, institutions and individuals that operate across national boundaries will be able to threaten the personal security, way of life and economic welfare of our people without threatening our country’s territorial integrity.
We will have to be progressive in our approach to the new threats. This requires not only an evolving constitutional and legal framework and a vibrant and flexible socioeconomic network, but also a modern technologically sound security apparatus to deal with possible threats that may emerge. This Bill may serve our purposes at present, but I foresee a very different Defence Bill that regulates very different notions of defence and defence force in the future.
In closing, allow me once again to thank the members of the department, and the state law advisers who assisted and advised the committee on all aspects relating to this Bill. Their input is greatly appreciated and valued. The DA supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr L V J NGCULU: Madam Speaker, today we are debating the Defence Bill eight years after the advent of democracy in our country. Cynics may say that we have delayed an important piece of legislation, legislation that is central to the stability of our democracy and security of South Africa.
Yet, given the critical importance of this legislation, it was necessary that it not be rushed, as its implications were far-reaching. It is in the nature of the ANC never to be sporadic in its approach, but to be guided by the careful consideration of the interests of the country.
We believe that the process is more important than just the outcome. Therefore, the decision was that the route to the adoption of this Bill would be consultative in order for it to be credible and acceptable to all South Africans, including serving members of the security forces.
So the Government continued to rely on the old Defence Act of 1957, together with other supplementary pieces of legislation. Some would decry this is an act of capitulation, but it was important to take one step forward and two steps backward whose displacement value was the stability of the country. This had its hiccups and some resented this, but today we cannot deny the fact that this was visionary leadership on the part of our Government.
The then Minister of Defence, the late Comrade Joe Modise, in his wisdom decided to set up a work group comprising the Department of Defence, other relevant government departments, Parliament and civil society whose brief was to produce a piece of legislation that would be acceptable to all. In this way, the Bill was subjected to the most thorough deliberations and debates in which everyone’s views mattered. Thereafter, the very same Bill had to undergo a similar process in the portfolio committee deliberations.
We therefore stand on this podium today confident that the Bill before us is something we all can identify ourselves with. We are excited that our Parliament is once again adopting a piece of legislation that has been the subject of public participation.
This Defence Bill seeks to repeal the 1957 Defence Act and to provide for defence in a democracy. Of course, the provision in the 1957 Act dealing with the military disciplinary code will be dealt with in a separate process.
The Bill establishes the position of the Secretary for Defence as the head of department and the accounting officer. This is a provision that clearly subjects the uniformed members, in particular, to civilian control. It further outlines the principles in terms of which any member of the Defence Force or auxiliary service and any employee must exercise his or her powers in the execution of his or her duties.
These principles emphasise the following. The formulation and execution of defence policy is subject to the authority of Parliament and the national executive. The primary objective of the Defence Force is to defend and protect the Republic, its people and its territorial integrity. The Defence Force must perform its functions in accordance with the Constitution and international law. No member of the Defence Force may obey a manifestly illegal order. The Defence Force must respect the fundamental rights and dignity of its members and of all people.
It is clear from the aforementioned that the issue of the constitutionality and accountability of the Defence Force is embedded in this Bill. The Bill clearly spells out the powers of the Minister when it comes to the Defence Force and the Department of Defence, and that the Minister may do or cause to be done all things which are necessary for the effective defence and protection of the Republic, its territory and its inhabitants.
The Bill also confirms the provision in the Constitution that only the President may authorise the deployment of the Defence Force, and that the President must inform Parliament promptly and in appropriate detail of the reasons, place, number and duration of such deployment. It is important to highlight that this Bill outlines the role and accountability of defence intelligence to the Minister of Defence in accordance with relevant legislation, and that the inspector general of the department must monitor the personnel structures of, adherence to the law and procedures by and activities of the intelligence division.
In other words, the Bill in front of us is a Bill that firmly puts our Defence Force and the country among the nations that respect civil and democratic control. It is also unequivocally clear that the Constitution reigns supreme and that Parliament is where everybody accounts.
Never again will it be possible for politicians and officers to abuse the Defence Force for narrow ends. Never again can those who abuse the Defence Force claim ignorance or be excused for turning a blind eye. Never again should the Defence Force be regarded as an aggressor in the region, but rather as a bringer of peace, stability and friendship to the nations on the continent.
There are some in this House and outside it who would like to portray the Defence Force, that is, the SA National Defence Force, as incompetent and unable to fulfil its duties. What is unfortunate is that most of them served in the old SADF without question or murmur.
Characteristic of this particular trend is what we actually heard the hon Schmidt say today. This represents, in particular, the characteristic nature of the DA: that nothing out of South Africa is good. [Interjections.] They continue to adopt an apocalyptic attitude to the democratic dispensation.
Hence, one will find the hon Schmidt complaining in portfolio committee meetings that he is tired of transformation. He complains about old age, HIV/Aids, buildings, lack of equipment, etc. Yet, very recently, we discussed in this House the terms of the armaments acquisition and the joint investigation report. Again, it was the very same DA that strenuously in this House opposed the acquisition process. Yet today he has the audacity to complain of the lack of equipment. What a despicable display of hypocrisy!
The hon Schmidt complains about the old age of members and there being too many generals. Perhaps the hon member has a short memory. For the record, he should be reminded that the current Defence Force is the result of the amalgamation of seven armies. I repeat: It is the result of the amalgamation of seven armies, and is not the SADF in which the hon Schmidt served. Maybe the hon Schmidt would have liked to see members of the liberation armies laid off. Of course, if members had been laid off, he should be reminded, there would have been disaster, anarchy and conflict in our country. Integration was the necessary route to take for the stability and security of our country.
All ranks, therefore, of those who served should and must be respected. Some, in particular those in the liberation movement, also served for a very long time, most of them from its inception in 1961 when MK was actually founded. They may be old in the eyes of the hon Schmidt, but to us they served honourably the cause of liberation. [Applause.] Of course, looking through the racist prism of the DA, they are perhaps a spent force. [Interjections.] The ``old’’ is seen by the DA to mean only those who served in the liberation movement, but there are also old members who actually served in the old defence force. We must confirm and be proud that the Defence Force is founded today on principles of constitutionality and democratic accountability, these principles actually making up a historic mission for the Defence Force.
They forget that the Defence Force today is imbued with democratic values and enjoys much support. Those of us who have studied peoples’ wars and done military studies all know that no force on earth can defeat a defence force supported by the people and founded on democratic values. [Applause.] We should therefore reject all such insinuations with the contempt they deserve. The SANDF today stands respected not only in South Africa, but on the continent and abroad.
We take this opportunity to remember in particular the late Joe Modise who steered MK and later the new SANDF to levels cherished by all South Africans.
As we celebrate this Defence Bill, we are reminded of the epitaph at the Elmina Castle in Ghana. It says, and I quote:
In everlasting glory of the anguish of our ancestors. May those who died rest in peace. May those who returned find their roots. May humanity never again perpetuate such injustice against humanity. We the living vow to uphold this.
We support the Defence Bill. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Chairperson, having listened to the members of the various parties comment on this Bill I am also taking this opportunity to cast my mind back in history. I am reminded as I look across the House that on many occasions we traversed the length and breadth of our country in the eighties with individuals like Prof Mohamed, Mawa Ram Cobin and Dr Jassat. We listened to voices including that of Norman Middleton and many other individuals from within our communties at that time, a time when the previous regime offered the tricameral solution. As we addressed meetings, some of those people I mentioned said: ``We are being offered fake votes - the tricameral parliament - so that we may be conscripted to carry real bullets against our own people.’’
I think it is important this afternoon to recall that and to be grateful that, as a result of those efforts, South Africans today are able to conclude and adopt a piece of legislation that pulls them together and places them as one solid united people that will confront the enemies of their country without taking each other’s lives.
It is efforts like those that we have to acknowledge this afternoon. We also have to address the question raised of why some members of the National Defence Force have been granted permission to stay at home whilst they receive their salaries. We must look at that question seriously, because that step has been taken. I have authorised it, and that is what is happening now.
It is happening because, at that time, the men and women who were driving towards a democratic future had no pension payouts. They had no guarantee of any future when their years of retirement came.
This Parliament has been very sensitive to this question. It has passed legislation authorising the executive to level out the pension payouts of those who served in the SA Defence force and other statutory forces, and to bring them on par with those who came from the liberation forces who had no pension payouts whatsoever. It has taken the executive some time to implement this. Many of these men and women are long past their retirement age. They are old; some of them are ill. I could not insist that they report for duty every day, but I could not dismiss them without pension payouts.
I therefore accepted the advice of my directors-general that they should be allowed to stay at home whilst we finalise these pension payouts, because, in any event, we have an excess of personnel in the National Defence Force today. Now I can inform Parliament that we are ready to proceed, and I therefore retire them now. [Applause]. So that is the reason. There is no other hidden agenda.
I also want to say in very brief terms that the National Defence Force is a voluntary force today. If there are people who are not happy to serve in the National Defence Force in terms of the conditions that prevail there today, they are free to resign and seek employment elsewhere. [Applause.]
But if there are people who think that they can stay in the National Defence Force and transgress the law and codes of the National Defence Force, they will find that there is no patience whatsoever with them. This is because the SA National Defence Force remains a military institution. There are some individuals who are trying to misuse the advantage of the military unions. I want to say for the record that they are called military unions, but they are not unions in the traditional sense that Cosatu is a union or any other of the other labour unions.
These are actually associations. They are associations intended to provide members of the National Defence force with additional mechanisms by which they can draw our attention and Government’s attention to the problems or difficulties they may experience, but they are not unions.
There are therefore special regulations. No member of these unions may belong to any union formation that is allied to a political party, because, in terms of the Defence Bill, no member of the National Defence Force may further or prejudice the interest of any political party. A member of the National Defence Force found busy with such activity as may be interpreted in this way, will be in trouble with me, with the department and with the legal processes of the country.
The SANDF must serve the people of South Africa without exception. And the SANDF requires men and women who are loyal; who devote themselves like former President Nelson Mandela and like so many of our people who gave their lives to advance the freedom and democracy of this country. That is who we want there. One serves under special circumstances, and sometimes one might not be happy with the conditions. But one is there first and foremost because one has chosen to serve the people in that capacity.
Therefore, this talk that I lack political will by children who were only born after we had brought about democracy, who were not there when I went to jail, who were not there when we were eating mealies on Robben Island, must stop. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] A level of humility is required.
Before young stars speak on this issue, they should really consider carefully who they are talking to and what they are saying to them. [Applause].
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGENCY AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION: Chairperson, hon members, prior to the year 2000 the provision of information technology services and goods to Government was fragmented. This is precisely why today we bring before this House the debate on the Sita amending Bill - the State Information Technology Agency Amendment Bill.
In terms of this IT fragmentation in Government, almost every department - through its own mechanisms and the state tender board - bought, developed and maintained its own information systems.
Government information and technology was clearly in quite a chaotic situation. Largely exploited by the industry, which was aware that there was a lack of co-ordination among Government departments, this industry could hence sell any system or product to government departments, irrespective of whether the systems or products were able to interrelate to one another.
Drastic measures had to be undertaken to rationalise and improve the control and delivery of information technology to Government. The State Information Technology Agency was established to address this urgent need. As a result of the promulgation of the State Information Technology Agency Act - Sita - in 1998, Sita came into being.
The Act provided for the compulsory participation by all departments in Sita as and when requested by departments and approved by Cabinet. Government eagerly awaited the benefits that were to be realised through the establishment of Sita. But it soon became evident that the State Information Technology Agency could not be all things to all clients or government departments.
As we redefine our understanding of the needs of Government in a transforming society and as Government and, indeed, the world are increasingly reliant on information technology for the effective delivery of goods and services, it becomes necessary to review, revise and renew our approach to the provision of IT services.
The Presidential Review Commission highlighted this prior to the 1999 elections, in which it indicated that Government was faced by a number of serious issues in the information technology environment.
The following major issues were identified then, and many are still apparent today. Government is without doubt the biggest spender on IT in South Africa. The return on investment, or the value added to Government services and to the citizens of the Republic, is difficult, if not impossible, to measure.
Departments were operating in an information technology vacuum. There were duplications of applications and systems, and the benefits of co-operation and co-ordination and the opportunity to share from experience were wasted. Although Government was the biggest spender on IT in South Africa, there was no meaningful way to leverage the spending power of the state to achieve economies of scale.
Departments acted autonomously and did not take into account the consideration that information about persons - individual or legal - is often shared amongst departments. The systems developed by departments did not allow for the easy interchange of information.
One of the most important considerations in a government IT system is to ensure that the system conforms to the security standards required by government and to prevent illegal access to information and systems. We daily face, through practical experience, the reality of individuals trying to illegally enter government information systems. The current Act does not allow Sita to address these problems in a streamlined and focused way, and this has to be corrected.
An in-depth analysis of the structure, tasks and organisation of Sita was undertaken during the year 2000. The conclusion was that the structure of Sita had to be aligned, not only to meet the demands of its clients, but also to address the shortcomings as identified in the Presidential Review Commission report.
Restructuring Sita without amending the current Act in order to empower Sita to achieve the objectives of the Presidential Review Commission would be a waste of effort and taxpayer’s money. Hence, Sita had to become empowered to act firmly, while having the necessary freedom, to achieve what we identified as the ``IT House of Value’’.
This involves the user and the citizen’s convenience through increased productivity at minimum cost and maximum efficiency and is based on the pillars of security and interoperability among government departments, on the elimination of duplication and on achieving economies of scale. The ``IT House of Value’’ has to be built on the foundation of an elite core - and I use this consciously, an elite core - of skilled performance-oriented personnel.
The current Act calls for a forced approached in which departments have no option, except when they would like to join and partake in Sita. It also demarcates this Government IT domain as the monopolistic playing field of Sita with no alternatives for participating departments.
In the amending Bill we changed the approach somewhat. In areas such as transversal systems, systems that are common to a number of departments - and this includes Persal, which is the payment and HR system - we use the strong-arm technique, and departments must participate. They have no choice there. But with regard to specific systems and applications, supporting the core activities of departments, we allowed departments to make a free choice as to whether they would like to use Sita or not; or, and if they do not, to invite industry to supply such services.
Now this forces Sita to pursue excellent performance, to attract departments and, where necessary, to enter into strategic partnerships with industry in order to meet the requirements of Government. I will come back to this issue in relation to the partnerships in the industry.
However, we also want Sita to do a lot more. In the amending Bill the agency has been mandated to become the single channel for the procurement of IT goods and services, as agreed to with the National Treasury. This applies irrespective of whether the goods or services are mandatory, transversal, or optional departmental-specific applications and systems.
During this procurement process, Sita has to certify systems in terms of interoperability; evaluate and certify the services or goods in terms of compliance with the accepted security standards applicable to government information services; and then, of course, Sita has to identify possible duplications and combine requirements of procurement through the co- ordination of all the procurement and acquisition needs of departments. This will enable Sita to negotiate maximum discounts and to achieve economies of scale through the leverage of the buying muscle of Government. The amending Bill also allows Sita to restructure, reorganise and streamline its organisation and processes to meet the challenges of the next decade without neglecting the founder members that were involved in the establishment of Sita.
On the point I raised earlier regarding strategic partnerships in the IT sector, we also seek to broaden the base of economic activity, and Government has a critical role in the development and expansion of the capacity of emerging and existing black IT enterprises.
Hence, this amendment makes this possible, and Sita is not small in terms of turnover. It operates in a dynamic environment in which technology matures and even becomes obsolete in a matter of three to five years. In view of this environment, Sita thus requires a dynamic company, and it is essential that the board of Sita be strengthened and expanded.
Hon members are aware that we have already put a new board in place that brings different skills to the table under the chairpersonship of Ms Zodwa Manase, who is in the box on my right. And, in the expansion of the board that the amendment allows, we want to further expand the skills base on the board. This can be accommodated amongst the appointed nonexecutive directors.
To further ensure that Sita remains competitive, the Act is being amended to ensure that there is adequate consultation on the costs of its services, on the one hand, and that departments are allowed a choice in terms of successful contracting at reasonable market rates, on the other hand. Like any other provider of goods and services, Government must continually seek ways to add value to the product it provides.
Sita is an agency that provides Government with a product, a product that enhances many services that each government department provides to its clients - the people of South Africa. Hence, we would also like to have a situation in which members of the public can access public services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, every day of the year. That is what we are moving towards.
We therefore place before this House a Bill that seeks to enhance and improve, that seeks to build on the lessons we have learnt, and that seeks to increase efficiency, effectiveness and render state-of-the-art services. The adoption of this Bill by Parliament will herald the beginning of a new era that will allow Sita to become a true partner in improving Government operations through enabling the technology of information systems.
It is fitting that we bring this amending Bill as we embark on and participate in the World Summit on Sustainable Development, because the use of IT services by Government is a core component in providing integrated and effective services, services that seek to eliminate waste and duplication, services that ensure that the different spheres of government
- different departments and institutions of Government - know what the other is doing and share the information and technology that they have. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr M WATERS: Chairperson, hon members, the DA welcomes any attempt to improve service delivery to the public as these amendments today seek to do.
The objectives of the Bill are twofold: firstly, the improvement of service delivery to the public through the provision of information technology - ie computers - information systems and related services; and, secondly, the promotion of the efficiency of departments and organs of state through the use of information technology.
What struck me most of all, given that have I visited a lot of courts lately, is what this could mean for the justice system, and particularly victims of crime. I would like to elaborate by giving a practical example. During the recent constituency period, I visited 15 courts in Gauteng as part of a fact-finding mission regarding child courts.
What I discovered was an almost complete information vacuum in which magistrates and prosecutors try cases and attempt to convict the guilty. This lack of information at their fingertips is often the difference between a conviction and letting a rapists or murderer go free. In my view, computers can be used effectively to catch criminals.
Only in one court did all prosecutors have their own computers, but none of these were networked within the office and no prosecutor or magistrate had access to the Internet. The implications of this are enormous. Apart from drowning in paper, prosecutors cannot research cases properly since many courts do not have libraries and those that do need extensive updating. By having access to the Internet, prosecutors would not only be able to network with each other, but also be able to keep up to date with the latest judgments, a vital requirement of their work.
Another way in which the Internet could be of great assistance to prosecutors and magistrates is that they would be able to keep up to date with amended legislation. Currently, it takes months for amendments to trickle down to the courts.
Lastly, by having basic equipment such as computers, the opportunity to link all courts throughout the country becomes a real possibility, thus allowing for a protected database to be developed. This would enable prosecutors to establish if an accused person applying for bail has had similar or other charges against him or her in another part of the country. This would empower prosecutors with facts when dealing with bail applications that could mean the difference between life and death.
We know from example that lack of such information could result in the court granting bail, which could lead to crimes being committed while the accused is out on bail. This has happened on several occasions recently.
I trust that the criminal justice cluster will be the first to receive attention in respect of this Bill. I cannot overemphasise the lack of information in courts which, to my mind, allows the guilty to walk free. Information is power, and nowhere is it needed more than in the courts.
While the DA welcomes any legislation that talks about improving the efficiency of Government’s service delivery, a few questions need to be raised with the hon Minister. Firstly, will the Department of Public Servive and Administration measure Sita’s effectiveness and performance in order to demonstrate that there actually has been an improvement in efficiency and financial savings; if so, how will they do this? Secondly, does Sita have a business plan or strategy to implement the objectives of this Act? Thirdly, does Sita currently have the capacity to meet the objectives of this Act?
The DA supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Dr U ROOPNARAIN: Chairperson, members of this honourable House, the amendments we are debating today will largely facilitate Sita’s operation which is about implementing a regulatory ideal or a new revised business model. There is no doubt that digital technology is the dynamo that drives our economy.
In the two or three minutes that are left to speak I will just give hon
members a capsule commentary on the Bill. Initially, the nature and
contours of the Bill demonstrated a web of intricate ambiguities. For
example, the IFP had deep reservations about the clause wide area
network'' and about certain definitions, such as that for agency’’ and
``organ of state.’’ These were really confusing and contradictory
expressions.
The term and foci of ``wide area network’’ seemed to insinuate the creation of a backbone for the third national operator, and, in addition, this was not aligned with the Telecommunications Act. Another problem was the insufficient amount of consultation with affected entities like Telkom and Transtel. The IFP also raised concerns about pre-existing relations with the various IT vendors and the repercussions after these amendments are implemented.
Another problem was Sita having a multiplicity of roles, such as player, procurer, broker and referee. This was cold comfort to us as members of the committee. Today we have a revised Bill, a Bill that is clear, without any superfluous, contradictory or confusing expressions.
The Bill also emphasises Sita’s role in using IT to improve service delivery through increasing productivity, guides Sita’s operation in the deployment of IT applications and in eliminating IT duplication. In short, it is a good Bill.
The IFP will support all efforts to ensure that Government gets value for money out of IT procurement. Furthermore, we believe that developed economies should not dominate in every category of information and communication technology, but that South Africa needs to get to centre stage and become part of this technological revolution.
In closing, I just want to say that it would be churlish not to support this Bill. The IFP supports the Bill.
Mr A Z A VAN JAARSVELD: Chairperson, in light of the New NP’s commitment to being a partner in the process of creating a better South Africa for all its people, the New NP welcomes the Government’s rationale of developing Sita as an ``IT House of Value’’.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide a further building block in the effort to bring about meaningful changes that are aimed at improved service delivery to the public by providing information technology, information systems and its related services that require a sustained system to departments and organs of state within a secured environment.
In die Departement van die Staatsdiens en Administrasie se voortdurende strewe na effektiwiteit binne die departement, maak die wysiging in die wetsontwerp voorsiening vir die uitbreiding en versekering van hierdie proses. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[In the Department of Public Service and Administration’s constant striving to bring about efficiency in the department, the amendment in the Bill makes provision for the extension and assurance of this process.]
It is true that there were very specific concerns raised by Telkom and Transtel with regard to the delivery of certain services by Sita. It is, however, noteworthy to mention that these concerns were adequately addressed by the director-general and his legal team. This proves the New NP’s policy that problems only get solved adequately when one engages constructively, rather than always adopting a stance of fight back like the DP usually does, as cool heads and open minds usually turn a perceived problem into a golden opportunity. [Interjections.]
We believe that the amendments provided for by this Bill will strengthen Sita’s efforts to provide information technology and information systems training aimed at alleviating information technology skills shortages within Government.
The provision of effective IT resource management will provide and manage application software development and maintenance services. Technical, functional and business advice to departments must seek to provide value for money to departments and convenience to citizens. Departments are still greatly dependent on contractors, whereas Sita should be responsible for providing IT technology and information systems to management services.
The New NP is of the opinion that this Bill will enable government departments, with the help of Sita, to provide an integrated, accurate and up-to-date population register in the future; provide educational records linked to the population register; provide access to Sars tax systems; provide biometrics integrated with the Deeds Register, unemployment records, health records for prompt feedback on eligibility and ease of pension payments; and, furthermore, provide biometrics integrated with the population register and links to Justice, the police and Correctional Services, to name but a few. Therefore, the New NP has no hesitation in supporting this Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr T ABRAHAMS: Chairperson, the State Information Technology Agency is a company established in 1999 by the Sita Act, Act 88 of 1998. It was established to provide IT and IS services and other related services to departments that chose to avail themselves of its services.
It has since been found that the agency has actually functioned efficiently and that the participating departments have benefited from their association with Sita. They stick out like a sore thumb.
The general demand for greater efficiency in the functioning of nonparticipating departments has necessitated the extension of the field of involvement of Sita in those departments and in other organs of state, and for Sita to serve as an intermediary in these fields, particularly in respect of procurement. Certain technical corrections have also to be made to the original Act.
The UDM believes that Sita has proved itself capable of greatly improving service delivery in departments, and therefore supports the amending Bill without reservation or further comments on its provisions.
However, I would like to comment on the cautious processing of this Bill by members of the committee - across party lines - and the diligent and professional manner in which the chairman of the committee, hon member Mr John Gomomo, led the committee through the intricacies of the provisions of this Bill. This was highly commendable. So hon member Mr Moss can see that we do not only criticise where necessary; we speak whether he listens or not.
Having had one’s concerns addressed and one’s questions answered in the committee by ever-ready officials, some of whom are sitting in the box, it has been rendered superfluous for me to ramble on ad nauseam about every detail. Therefore, the UDM supports the amending Bill. [Applause.]
Mr L M GREEN: Chairperson, hon members, the amendments in this Bill for the purpose of increased performance in service delivery by Sita necessitate that Government’s information systems be effectively aligned. Sita’s primary role is to ensure that Government’s information technology functions at optimum standards.
The complexity of multiple networks that are not properly aligned to Government business can create insecurity and unpredictability in information systems operations. It is especially essential for the process of co-operative government to have information systems in which the lines of communications are efficiently aligned.
The other area of importance is the greater security needed in managing information systems. The increasing use of technology demands that we acquire the best systems to protect our national security. If these are some of the information areas Sita is called on to improve, then this Bill will help to provide the framework to achieve these objectives.
The ACDP therefore supports this Bill without reservation.
Mr P J GOMOMO: Chairperson, the main objectives of this Bill is to lower costs, increase productivity and enhance service delivery to the public in such a way that there is security of information and the absence of duplication, all to ensure the realisation of Government’s ``Information Technology House of Value’’.
The desirability of this arises from the fact that the Sita Act, which this honourable House passed in 1998 in its current form, does not provide for the realisation of the objectives intended in terms of this Bill. It is a fitting observation to say that this Bill is a technical intervention in order to provide for an environment conducive to the realisation of a grand plan, which this House conceptualised four years ago when it passed the Sita Act.
In this current democratic political dispensation there is always the need for transparency and yet there is also a need for accountability, and the key to that is that the communication network should be so organised as to achieve maximum output with reasonable costs. Information technology is a useful tool in the realisation of our political mandate. This amendment to the Sita Act is there to sharpen this tool.
The Portfolio Committee on Public Service and Administration visited the Sita site in April this year, and that visit demonstrated to me and the committee the fact that Sita is an institution that is well resourced to perform within expectations. I regard the intervention in terms of this Bill as an important contribution.
Our own experience will also remind us of the fact that the duplication we have in dealing with the information technology needs of Government is unfortunate and amounts to unaccountable expenditure. There is no doubt that the provision of this Bill will alleviate all this. It is also a value- adding exercise to have the Bill before us as it will give Sita the function of providing the necessary service for government-to-government communication, without the involvement of other parties.
In dealing with this Bill, the portfolio committee engaged with the original draft by the Department of Public Service and Administration in a manner that showed a commitment to insisting on the correctness of the actions of the executive. There was robust debate, and all efforts seemed to want to get us to come out with a workable piece of legislation of which we could all be proud.
To this end I want to thank all members of the committee for their contribution. I must say that they are wonderful people. Even when we had to finalise our report on this Bill, we adopted it as a committee without dissension and expected a smooth debate in this House, as has been the case today.
I also want to commend Transnet and Telkom for their concerns about the Bill in terms of the way it was originally drafted, particularly because they did not keep quiet but came forward to raise issues that concerned them. Some of them received only short notice to appear before the committee and yet they performed exceedingly well.
The fact that the final Bill, which we are debating today, took on board the issues they raised through the necessary amendment of the original Bill is indicative of the reality that the ANC is not paying lip service when we talk about a consultative legislation process, because we mean that we may be influenced and that people should come forward.
Finally, I want to salute the Department of Public Service and Administration for their professionalism in dealing with this Bill, and, more so, for the manner in which they proved responsive to the call of democratic governance. I must say that after the department held meetings with Transnet and Telkom to clarify areas of potential conflict with their respective mandates, the work of the committee was made simpler as we could not have just proceeded with the Bill as if ignoring the concerns raised by those two institutions. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
The House adjourned at 16:43. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The following Bill was introduced by the Minister of Health in
the National Assembly on 21 August 2002 and referred to the Joint
Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule
160:
(i) Medicines and Related Substances Amendment Bill [B 40 -
2002] (National Assembly - sec 75) [Explanatory summary of
Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in
Government Gazette No 23684 of 29 July 2002.]
The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Health of
the National Assembly.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bill may be submitted to the JTM within three parliamentary
working days.
(2) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 20 August 2002 in terms of
Joint Rule 160(6), classified the following Bill as a section 74
Bill:
(i) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third
Amendment Bill [B 33 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 74).
(3) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 20 August 2002 in terms of
Joint Rule 160(6), classified the following Bills as section 75
Bills:
(i) Corporate Laws Amendment Bill [B 32 - 2002] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
(ii) Broadcasting Amendment Bill [B 34 - 2002] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
(iii) Special Pensions Amendment Bill [B 35 - 2002] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
(iv) South African Revenue Service Amendment Bill [B 36 - 2002]
(National Assembly - sec 75).
(v) Medical Schemes Amendment Bill [B 37 - 2002] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Labour:
Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Banking Sector Education
and Training Authority for 2001-2002, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2001-2002 [RP 95-2002].
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs on the Planning Profession Bill [B 76B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 20 August 2002:
The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, having considered the Planning Profession Bill [B 76B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 75) and a proposed amendment of the National Council of Provinces (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 24 July 2002, p 1213), referred to the Committee, reports that it has rejected the amendment.
Report to be considered.