National Council of Provinces - 07 May 2002
TUESDAY, 7 MAY 2002 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 14:06.
The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
DISCOMFORT OF MEMBERS
(Announcement)
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, you will have to be prepared for a certain amount of discomfort. We are squatting here in the Old Assembly Chamber and we are going to have to tolerate the business that is going on out there in the lobby and the noise that may intrude on our own deliberations. As squatters, we do not have much of a say as to what happens and how we respond to it.
NEW MEMBER
(Announcement)
The Chairperson announced that the vacancy in the delegation of the Western Cape had been filled by the appointment of Mr F Adams with effect from 15 March 2002.
The member made and subscribed the oath in the office of the Chairperson.
STATEMENT OF CONDOLENCE
(The late Mr S V Tshwete)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Madam Chair, hon members and comrades, the NCOP salutes the late Minister of Safety and Security, Steve Vukile Tshwete, who passed away an hour before Freedom Day 2002 in Military Hospital in Pretoria. Comrade Tshwete was born in the village of Peelton on 12 November 1938. He spent his childhood in Peelton and later in King William’s Town and East London. The growth of his political awareness coincided with the 1950s Treason Trial.
He was still at school when he joined the ANC and was elected national secretary of the South African Students Organisation, at the same time that our President Mbeki was its chairperson. Undeterred by the banning of the organisation, Comrade Steve went underground and joined uMkhonto weSizwe and also became secretary of the regional command of MK. He was captured in 1963 and in the following year was sentenced to 15 years for sabotage.
He turned to the political organisation in the Eastern Cape following his release in 1978, becoming the president of the UDF in the Border region in
- He was declared a prohibited immigrant in South Africa and banished and restricted to the Ciskei. He had been repeatedly detained by the Ciskei government. He left the country and returned to the country permanently on the instructions of the national executive committee of the ANC.
In May 1990 he assumed work for the ANC as its national organiser. He headed the ANC sports desk and later became the Minister of Sport and Recreation. He performed a pivotal role as Minister of sport with a passion that moved the nation and which made sport our common playground as South Africans and a powerful tool of national reconciliation and nation- building. When our teams won, Comrade Steve rejoiced with them. When they lost, he cried with them and became part of the teams and went with them through their trials and tribulations.
In 1999 Comrade Tshwete was appointed Minister of Safety and Security. He dedicated himself to tackling crime and lawlessness and building safer communities for our people. He made his presence felt. He was able to win the support of our police, motivate them and identify with them and understood the challenges they faced in their day-to-day work. Comrade Tshwete was not desk-bound. He was a leader who was always in the hot spots, providing support to police officials on the beat and assuring people and victims of crime that he was there, committed to eradicating crime in society.
Despite a schedule in which he had to dedicate many many hours to the nation, Comrade Steve was also a dedicated father and a loyal husband. This Council therefore conveys its sincere condolences to his spouse, to his children and to the family of Comrade Tshwete. [Applause.]
Mnr J L THERON: Agb Voorsitter, ek wil hierdie mosie graag spesifiek in Afrikaans doen as ‘n erkenning aan die veelsydigheid van Minister Steve Tshwete. Soos baie van u seker weet, kon hy onder meer baie vlot Afrikaans praat en dit wys onder andere op sy veelsydigheid. Ander aspekte wat ek kan uitwys wat betref sy veelsydigheid, sluit in: Hy was ‘n baie goeie sportman. Atletiek, sokker en rugby tel onder die sportsoorte wat hy beoefen het. Hy was ‘n goeie rugbyspeler en het selfs rugby op die eiland georganiseer, waarin hy homself goed uitgeleef het.
Hy was ‘n goeie organiseerder; van sy jeugjare af was hy betrokke in verskeie hoedanighede in die organisering van die jeug. Hy was ‘n goeie dispuut- en konflikhanteerder - vandaar die bynaam ``Mr Fix It’’ - wat boekdele spreek. Dit is ook bekend dat die ANC vir hom baie effektief in dié verband operasioneel aangewend het. Hy was ‘n goeie gesinsman. Hy was ‘n goeie leier. Hy was ‘n goeie Minister. Hy was Minister van Sport en hy was Minister van Veiligheid en Sekuriteit.
Ek kan nie die geleentheid laat verbygaan sonder om hierdie een aspek van
hom duidelik uit te lig nie. Die groot Afrikaanse digter Jan F E Celliers
het in sy gedig Trou'' gesê:Ek hou van ‘n man wat sy man kan staan.’’
En: ``Ek hou van ‘n arm wat ‘n slag kan slaan.’’ Minister Tshwete was by
uitstek iemand wat sy man kon staan. Daarvoor eer ons hom en daarin was hy
vir almal van ons ‘n voorbeeld. Ons het vandag in Suid-Afrika meer mense
nodig wat hul man kan staan en hier kan ons sy voorbeeld navolg, as ons van
Suid-Afrika ‘n vooruitstrewende land wil maak. [Applous.] (Translation of
Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr J L THERON: Hon Chairperson, I would like to move this motion specifically in Afrikaans as a recognition of the versatility of Minister Steve Tshwete. As many of you probably know, he could speak Afrikaans fluently, among others, and this indicates, among other things, his versatility. Other aspects I could highlight regarding his versatility include the following: He was a very good sportsman. Athletics, soccer and rugby are among the sports which he played. He was a good rugby player and even organised rugby on the island, which he did to the full.
He was a good organiser; from the time of his youth he was involved in
various capacities in organising the youth. He was good at dealing with
conflict and disputes - from which he got the nickname Mr Fix It'' -
which speaks volumes. It is also known that operationally the ANC utilised
him very effectively in this regard. He was a good family man. He was a
good leader. He was a good Minister. He was the Minister of Sport and he
was the Minister of Safety and Security. I cannot allow the opportunity to
pass to clearly highlight this one aspect of him. The important Afrikaans
poet Jan F E Celliers said in his poemTrou’’: Ek hou van 'n man wat sy
man kan staan.'' And:Ek hou van ‘n arm wat ‘n slag kan slaan.’’ Minister
Tshwete was notably someone who could stand his ground. We honour him for
that and he was an example to all of us. Today we need more people in South
Africa who can stand their ground and here we can follow his example, if we
want to make South Africa a progressive country. [Applause.]]
Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, in the words of President Mbeki: ``A great patriot, a fearless freedom fighter, a selfless servant of the people and a committed nation-builder has fallen.’’
I repeat these words of our President today because they succinctly encapsulate the greatness of our late colleague Minister Steve Tshwete. I had the privilege of getting to know Steve Tshwete much better than before during the past few months, which were also the last few months of his life, especially during the talks between the ANC and the New NP. Although I thought I knew him reasonably well before, it was only during these past few months that I really got to understand the depth of his love for our country and our nation.
I got to know the depth of his warm and sincere personality, the depth of his passion for reconciliation and nation-building between all our people and the depth of his commitment to make South Africa work and to create a better life for all in South Africa.
I will never forget the openness, the passion and the sincerity with which he spoke when he addressed our federal council and also at the press conference thereafter. He also gave me - and I believe many South Africans
- new hope that we would be able to succeed in drastically bringing down the unacceptable crime levels in our country. Under his leadership it was possible to stabilise the levels of crime more than a year before it was thought possible to do so.
He really deserved the nickname ``Mr Fix It’’, not only because he could really get things done, but also because he had the ability to inspire people around him, and to make them enthusiastic about achieving solutions to what may have seemed insurmountable problems. We will sorely miss him in this Council and, at a personal level, many of us will also miss him as a trusted friend.
We can honour his memory by doing our utmost to continue the service he so selflessly rendered to South Africa and all its people, and to continue with the nation-building that he was so passionate about and so committed to.
Our deepest sympathy goes to his wife, Pamela, and his four children. They can forever be proud of him.
Hamba kahle, ntanga. [Go well, brother.]
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson and hon members, like all other members who have spoken before me, and on behalf of my party, the IFP, I stand up with a very broken heart to express our deepest sympathy to the family, friends, comrades and all who came into contact with the late hon member and Minister of Safety and Security, Mr Steve Tshwete.
He was a great leader and one of the great sons Africa has produced. We in the IFP salute him for what he was. He demonstrated a warm attitude to people around him and maintained impartiality. He was a leader to all, and a leader for all. He was dedicated to his work and therefore was loved for his commitment to whatever work he was doing. The nickname ``Mr Fix It’’ says it all.
He will definitely be missed, not only by his family and his comrades and friends, but also by all peace-loving, good citizens of the country who are committed to transformation and development within the African continent as a whole. His sudden death has shocked the country. I hope that his unique style of debate when defending what he believed in will be acquired or has already been adopted by some of the young members of this House. He has fought a good fight. May his soul now rest in peace.
Sithi thina beNkatha Freedom Party: Dudu kini nonke zihlobo nomndeni akwehlanga lungehlanga. INkosi ibisiphile yena, iNkosi isithathile. [We in the Inkatha Freedom Party say: The family and relatives must be consoled. What has happened could not be prevented. God gave him to us, God has taken him.]
Mr R M NYAKANE: Chairperson, hon members, on 26 April this year the skies clouded over, something which was symbolic of the drawing to a close of a great man’s time here on earth. This man who was loved in the hills and admired in the cities was also able to milk cows. He often eclipsed men of greatness. May his ancestors shine their light on him, and may he continue to live in the hearts of those whom he served by making their lives richer.
His departure from this world is truly a loss. But let us not allow that to make us fail in our duty. Let us take lessons from his legacy and pass them on to our children. Let us feed our children truth and respect, two moral qualities personified by a great leader, Steve Tshwete. His deeds have spoken to all South Africans.
Etlela hi ku rhula nhenha ya tinhenha. [Rest in peace, hero of heroes.]
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, our prayers and deepest condolences go out to the Tshwete family at this sad time, which has not been made any easier by his having been so much in the public eye at the time of his death. His gruff exterior and his tough talk was clearly what was needed by a demoralised Police Service at the time of his appointment as Minister, and he certainly did not disappoint the country.
However, I suspect that that gruff exterior hid and shielded a softer side. I experienced it myself, and I value the memory thereof. He was a popular Minister, and he will be missed.
It is quite interesting that when someone dies, immediately particular attributes of that person come to the fore. Very often it is just like when one looks at a baby and one is able to tell that it looks like its father. If someone dies and everybody starts talking about them, particular attributes come to the fore.
It is interesting to see what attributes were immediately given to Tshwete.
People spoke of his loyalty, and words such as reconciliation'' and
reconciler’’ were on everybody’s lips. It is strange because people might
have used other terms to describe his military background, but they did
not. It was the reconciliatory aspect of his personality which was on
everyone’s lips. We in the ACDP respect and honour that, and there can be
no greater attribute any South African can have at this time. We support
the motion.
Mr J O TLHAGALE: Chairperson and hon members of this House, although my acquaintance with the late Safety and Security Minister was of short duration, I nonetheless knew him as a forthright and no-nonsense person.
At our management meeting on 29 April this year, after observing a moment of silence in his honour, the leader of the UCDP, Kgosi Mangope, said that he regarded the late Steve Tshwete as the right man who was equal to the task for which he had been appointed, and had looked to him as somebody who would solve the problem of crime in our country.
An important lesson that must not pass unnoticed is that whilst we oppose each other even to the extent of indulging in unparliamentary and acrimonious accusations against each in the Houses of Parliament, we nevertheless love each other.
May his survivors, relatives and our colleagues in the ANC know that we in the UCDP share their grief. May his soul rest in peace. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! I thank hon members for those statements of condolence and add, from the Chair, a further statement. I was deeply distressed to hear of Minister Tshwete’s passing last weekend, and more distressed at having to travel abroad a day after learning of this painful loss. I would therefore like to express my own deepest sympathy and condolences to his wife and children on their tragic loss. South Africa is all the poorer for losing a patriot with the charisma to inspire and the energy to implement.
Minister Tshwete’s enthusiasm for life, his rough-and-tough approach to politics and personal warmth touched all who knew him. His bravery in the struggle against apartheid is legendary. South Africa is the poorer for losing a patriot of his courage and conviction. Comrade Tshwete was an outstanding comrade, a gallant freedom fighter and a true leader in all spheres. He was, as many have said, larger than life. He will be missed by all of us.
As we remember his contribution as Minister of Safety of Security, let us not forget the enthusiasm and talent he brought to his stewardship of our return to international sport, nor his successful work with all the parties in Parliament as Leader of Government Business. Happily, we are fully honest when we say that he played each of these national roles with honour and efficiency. His death is a loss to the nation, and his memory will live on for generations. Hamba kahle, Comrade Steve! [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
NOTICES OF MOTION
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:
That the Council, noting -
(1) the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Middle East, occasioned by Israeli state aggression against the state and people of Palestine, including the killing and maiming of civilians;
(2) the occupation of Palestinian land and territory by the Israeli government;
(3) the violation by the Israeli government of UN Human Rights treaties and the Geneva Convention and protocols on the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war;
(4) the efforts of the Arab States, the United Nations, the UN Security Council and several other governments, including the Government of South Africa, to find a lasting peaceful solution in the Middle East;
(5) the refusal of the Israeli government to permit UN observers to investigate the events in Jenin; and
(6) the progress in regard to resolving an impasse in the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem,
therefore requests that a debate with the title ``Palestine: a struggle for self-determination, freedom, human dignity and peace’’ be held on 9 May 2002.
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, at the next sitting of this House I shall move:
That the Council -
(1) notes with serious concern -
(a) the rising rate of unemployment and poverty;
(b) that millions of people live in destitution; and
(c) that sound economic policies do not always translate into higher
standards of living; and
(2) therefore calls on all sectors of government to commit more resources to the development of the small business sector because this sector has a huge percentage of women involved in survivalist business activities.
Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Voorsitter, by die volgende sitting van die Raad gaan ek voorstel:
Dat die Raad -
(1) kennis neem dat daar mediavraagstukke in Suid-Afrika is wat onopgelos is soos die motivering vir ‘n presidensiële perskorps in ‘n land waar mediavryheid grondwetlik verskans word en die persepsie dat dié korps nie ernstig deur die buitelandse media ervaar word nie;
(2) voorts kennis neem dat die tweede internasionale konferensie oor die parlemente en die media onlangs deur die Statebond en die Wêreldbank in Suid-Afrika gehou is …
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Mr Van Niekerk, could you wait? I understand that we have a problem with the sound. Could we ensure that the interpreters are able to hear what is being said on the floor of the House? They are unable to interpret owing to the sound not carrying.
Mr Van Niekerk, I am afraid that I have to do something that I do not normally do and give you more time so that you can present your notice of motion from the beginning again owing to the fact that it was not heard.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Thank you, Chairperson. That means that I do not have to rush, as I was doing. [Laughter.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: You do have to rush! [Laughter.]
Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Voorsitter, by die volgende sitting van die Raad gaan ek voorstel:
Dat die Raad -
(1) kennis neem dat daar mediavraagstukke in Suid-Afrika is wat onopgelos is soos die motivering vir ‘n presidensiële perskorps in ‘n land waar mediavryheid grondwetlik verskans word en die persepsie dat dié korps nie ernstig deur die buitelandse media ervaar word nie;
(2) voorts kennis neem dat die tweede internasionale konferensie oor parlemente en die media onlangs deur die Statebond en die Wêreldbank in Suid-Afrika gehou is;
(3) van mening is dat dit hoog tyd is dat die SA Parlement en die SA media in hierdie Parlement die gesprek verder voer en dat hierdie twee rolspelers nou eienaarskap moet neem om daardeur doeltreffende verhoudinge hier te kan bou en so die aansien van die Parlement as ‘n demokratiese instelling te kan verhoog; en
(4) laastens kennis neem dat die Internasionale Media-Vryheidsdag op 3 Mei gevier word en dat lande in Afrika onder die nuwe Afrika-unie ‘n geleentheid het om ‘n manifes saam te stel wat internasionale agterdog oor die vry media as instelling op die vasteland kan besweer. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:
That the Council -
(1) takes note that there are media questions in South Africa which remain unresolved such as the motivation for a Presidential press corps in a country where freedom of the press is entrenched in the Constitution and the perception that this corps is regarded as a joke by the foreign media;
(2) furthermore notes that the second international conference on parliaments and the media was recently hosted in South Africa by the Commonwealth and the World Bank;
(3) is of the opinion that it is high time that the SA Parliament and the SA media should take the debate further in this Parliament and that these two roleplayers should now take ownership to thereby build efficient relationships here in order to enhance the esteem of Parliament as a democratic institution; and
(4) lastly takes note that International Media Freedom Day was celebrated on 3 May and the countries in Africa under the new African Union has an opportunity to compile a manifest which could allay international suspicion about a free media as institution on the continent.]
CONGRATULATIONS TO NEW DEPUTY MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
(Draft Resolution)
Ms L JACOBUS: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) congratulates Ms Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula on her appointment as Deputy Minister of Home Affairs;
(2) notes that she has over difficult periods in the history of our country distinguished herself as a woman committed to the ideals of our nation;
(3) further notes that her qualities, abilities and diligence are widely respected; and
(4) believes that she will be the perfect catalyst for transformation, not only in the Department of Home Affairs, but also in the country as a whole.
I have just come from the swearing in ceremony of the Deputy Minister and I could not help noticing that she has very small feet. I am more than confident, however, that she will be able to fill the boots of her predecessor and comfortably walk the walk.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
TRIBUTE TO MARK SHUTTLEWORTH
(Draft Resolution)
Dr E A CONROY: Voorsitter, ek stel graag sonder kennisgewing voor:
Dat die Raad -
(1) hulde bring aan ons ruimtereisiger, Mark Shuttleworth;
(2) hom gelukwens met sy besondere prestasie om die eerste Afrikaan en Suid-Afrikaner in die buitenste ruim te word; en
(3) hom bedank vir die wyse waarop hy die naam van Suid-Afrka en ons trotse vlag tot nuwe hoogtes gevoer en ‘n navolgingswaardige rolmodel vir die Suid-Afrikaanse jeug geskep het. (Translation of Afrikaans motion without notice follows.)
[Dr E A CONROY: Chairperson, I take pleasure in moving without notice:
That the Council -
(1) pays tribute to our cosmonaut Mark Shuttleworth;
(2) congratulates him on his exceptional achievement of being the first African and South African in outer space; and
(3) thanks him for the manner in which he took the name of South Africa and our proud flag to new heights and created a role model worth emulating for the South African youth.]
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONGRATULATIONS TO NEW MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
(Draft Resolution)
Mr T S SETONA: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes with gratification the appointment of Comrade Charles Nqakula as the new Minister of Safety and Security;
(2) believes his appointment is an acknowledgement of the positive and constructive role he has played in the transformation and nation- building process in the new South Africa;
(3) further believes that his appointment is a fitting tribute to the enormous contribution he has made in the struggle for liberation and the commitment and hard work he has shown towards the people of South Africa; and
(4) joins in this celebration by congratulating the honourable Minister of Safety and Security on his appointment.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
NEGATIVE REPORTS ON HOSPITAL CONDITIONS
(Draft Resolution)
Dr P J C NEL: Voorsitter, ek stel sonder kennisgewing voor:
Dat die Raad -
(1) kennis neem dat -
(a) negatiewe berigte oor die haglike toestande wat tans in die
hospitale in die Oos-Kaap heers, onlangs in nuusblaaie en ander
media gerapporteer is;
(b) dié negatiewe berigte 'n persepsie skep dat dit die geval is in
alle hospitale in alle provinsies, maar dit is verseker nie waar
van die hospitale in die Vrystaat nie; en
(c) die oorsaak vir die agteruitgang na bewering toegeskryf kan word
aan 'n tekort aan fondse, wat reeds aan die begin van die nuwe
boekjaar ondervind word;
(2) die agbare Minister van Gesondheid versoek om ondersoek in te stel na dié bewerings; en
(3) indien dit wel die geval is dringend vra dat die aangeleentheid onmiddellik beredder word. (Translation of Afrikaans motion without notice follows.)
Dr P J C NEL: Chairperson, I move without notice: That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) negative reports about the desperate conditions that currently
prevail in the hospitals in the Eastern Cape have recently been
reported in newspapers and other media;
(b) these negative reports create the perception that this is the
case in all hospitals in all provinces, but that this is
certainly not true of the hospitals in the Free State; and
(c) the cause for the deterioration can allegedly be ascribed to a
shortage of funds, experienced as early as at the beginning of
the new financial year;
(2) requests the honourable Minister of Health to investigate these allegations; and
(3) if this is indeed the case, urges that the matter be addressed immediately.]
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
INTERNATIONAL NURSES' DAY
(Draft Resolution)
Ms E C GOUWS: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) the ICN proclaimed 12 May (this coming Sunday) as International
Nurses' Day;
(b) this day, the anniversary of Florence Nightingale's birth, is
celebrated around the world every year; and
(c) International Nurses' Day provides an excellent opportunity to
inform and remind the public about the extent and importance of
nurses' work; and
(2) suggests that we not only remember our mothers on this Mother’s Day, but spare a thought for our nurses and let us send a rose to a nurse on 12 May.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: The motion is agreed to, but I wonder where hon members are going to find roses.
DEATH OF KGOSHI MASHILE
(Draft Resolution)
Mr M I MAKOELA: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council - (1) notes, with sadness, the passing away of Kgoshi Mashile, a former Senator and a former member of the National Council of Provinces representing the Northern Province until 1999;
(2) conveys its condolences to the family of Kgoshi Mashile; and
(3) pledges its spiritual and moral support during their time of grief.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
RECENT PERFORMANCE OF NATIONAL SPORTS TEAMS
(Draft Resolution)
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that the three major codes of sport in South Africa, ie cricket, soccer and rugby, seem to find themselves in the doldrums of poor performances;
(2) calls upon all South Africans not to indulge in an orgy of finger- pointing at various scapegoats, but rather to unite behind our national sides and to give space to the respective administrators to restore order and a sense of discipline and commitment; and
(3) believes that sooner rather than later “alles sal regkom” and that all South Africans will be proud once again of our national teams’ performances in the international limelight.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
BEREAVEMENTS OF NCOP MEMBERS
(Draft Resolution)
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) takes note of the grief experienced by the following colleagues, their families and friends:
(a) colleague Vilakazi grieves the death of her sister; and
(b) colleague Taabe grieves the death of his mother; and
(2) further notes that when Mr A E van Niekerk’s father passed away years ago a friend comforted him with the following words:
Remember all the good and outstanding characteristics your beloved
one was loved for, for now after his death it is your
responsibility to make those characteristics live through you.
That is the price you have to pay for the privilege you had, to
know the beloved who passed on. We wish you the grace of God to be
healed soon.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
POLICY FOR ALLOCATION OF FISHING RIGHTS
(Draft Resolution)
Mrs A M VERSFELD: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that the DA is calling on Minister Valli Moosa and the Department of Marine and Coastal Management to produce the set of policy guidelines that was supposed to appear with the application forms for fishing rights;
(2) calls on that department to go out to visit fishing communities to explain to them -
(a) how the above criteria were applied; and
(b) why some people who are not bona fide fishermen got allocations
while most of the subsistence fishermen once again got nothing;
(3) further notes that the DA is challenging the Minister and Marine and Coastal Management for a public debate on the issue of rights allocation and their so-called policy guidelines; and
(4) also notes that the DA is noting with concern that a PDI group that applied for a fishing right were denied access because one member ``was convicted of fishing without a permit’’ and that the DA is hoping that the Minister and his department will apply the same criteria once they revisit the application of Hout Bay Fishing and not give them special privileges because they could afford to pay a fine of R40 million - what is good for the goose is good for the gander!
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Is there any objection to the motion? There is an objection. The motion will therefore become notice of a motion.
I think it is important that hon members move matters on behalf of parties represented in the House.
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I am grateful for the sympathy expressed, but I wonder if the House would allow me to correct Mr Van Niekerk’s motion. It is not my sister who passed away, but my first daughter.
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AMENDMENT BILL
(Debate in terms of section 74(5)(c))
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, the draft legislation forming the subject of our debate this afternoon is one of a package of four pieces of legislation, four Bills with one common denominator. They all deal with the creation of laws providing for and governing the procedures relating to the crossing of the floor by elected representatives, or to frame it in a more legal tongue, the legislation deals with changes of party membership, mergers between parties and subdivision of parties within the context of national, provincial and local government legislatures.
The first of these Bills is the Loss or Retention of Membership of National and Provincial Legislatures Bill, which deals with the issue of crossing the floor in the National Assembly and the provincial legislatures. This Bill finds its origin in the Constitution itself, which provides that an Act of Parliament may, within a reasonable period after the Constitution took effect, be passed in accordance with section 76(1) to provide for the manner in which it will be possible for a member of a legislature who ceases to be a member of the party which nominated him or her to retain membership of that legislature. The same Act may also provide for any existing party to merge with another party or to subdivide into more than one party. On 13 November 2001 the National Assembly gave permission to the Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development to proceed with the consideration of this Bill.
The second Bill is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment Bill, which is the subject of our debate this afternoon. The purpose of this Bill is to address the crossing issue at local government level, and I will return shortly to the provisions of this Bill.
Thirdly, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Second Amendment Bill creates a mechanism for adjusting the composition of a province’s delegation to the National Council of Provinces in the event of a significant change in the composition of a provincial legislature. I need not say more in regard to this Bill, save to remark that it affects the Council and it must, accordingly, also be passed by this Council.
The final member of this quartet of Bills is the Bill amending the Local Government Municipal Structures Act of 1998 in order to harmonise its provisions relating to loss of council membership with the provisions of the first Constitution Amendment Bill, the subject of today’s debate. As I have mentioned, the first Constitution Amendment Bill aims to regulate changes of party membership and mergers or subdivision of parties at the level of local government.
The provisions of the Bill are largely modelled on the principles contained in the Bill dealing with membership. Provision is made for the following: Changes of party membership will only be allowed after the expiry of a period of 12 months after the date of the previous election of all municipal councils. Similarly, such changes will not be allowed during the 12 months preceding the date of the next election of all municipal councils. A further requirement is added, namely, that a change of party membership will only be allowed if the members wishing to leave a party represent not less than 10% of the seats held by the party concerned. Similarly, mergers between or subdivisions of political parties will only be allowed after the expiry of 12 months after the date of the previous election of all municipal councils and will not be allowed during the 12 months preceding the date of the next election of all municipal councils. In respect of subdivisions, a further requirement is also added, that the members leaving the original party must represent not less than 10% of the seats held by the party concerned.
All of the above steps may only take place during limited periods, as determined by the Bill. In the year 2002 such periods will be during the first 15 days following the commencement of section 158A and again from the first to the 15th day of September. In the years thereafter, such periods will last from the first to the 15th day of February and from the first to the 15th day of September of each year.
The Bill also introduces a new principle in that provision is made that during the period allowed for the above changes of membership, mergers or sudivisions of parties, no party represented in a municipal council may suspend or terminate the party membership of a councillor representing that party. A party is further prevented from performing any act whatsoever which may cause such a councillor to be disqualified from holding office as a councillor or change such councillor’s position on a party list relating to the said municipal council. During the window period allowed for crossing, mergers or subdivisions, a councillor is allowed to change party membership only once and a party may merge or subdivide only once.
It stands to reason that the proposed amendments are evoking considerable interest both from within and outside Parliament. Both Constitution- amending Bills were published in the Gazette for public comment and I have also invited comments from various provincial legislatures. It is already apparent, from the comments received, that there are certain areas of the proposed legislation that will require some refinement and I believe that those matters will shortly be dealt with comprehensively by the relevant committees of Parliament.
I do not wish to pre-empt the possible changes, save to remark that the provisions of the membership Bill will obviously have to be brought into line with those of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment Bill because we want to ensure that the principles governing changes of party membership and mergers or subdivision of parties will be the same at national, provincial and local government levels. For example, we have already moved away from the concept proposed in the membership Bill that the President must, by means of a proclamation, determine the periods during which such changes will be allowed to take place.
I am confident that the views that are expressed by all participants in this debate will provide useful in assisting towards the consideration of this legislation. [Applause.] Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, I am not going to repeat what the Minister said, but I will emphasise what he said.
Once more, as we promised, Parliament is coming up with this piece of legislation to add yet another pillar to support our democracy. This seeks, for the first time in our democracy, to regulate changes of party membership, mergers and subdivision of parties at the level of local government.
As members are aware, this constitutional requirement is contained in item 23A of Schedule 2 to the interim Constitution, that is Act 200 of 1993. This provision dictates that an Act of Parliament may, within a reasonable period after the new Constitution took effect, be passed in accordance with section 76(1) of the 1996 Constitution to amend that particular item which would make it possible for members of the legislature to change their party membership without losing their seats.
These items, 23 and 23A, refer to the Loss or Retention of Membership of National and Provincial Legislatures Bill, which modelled and necessitated the creation of this piece of legislation which is before us. At present, our Constitution does not provide for similar changes of party membership and mergers between or subdivisions of parties in the context of local government. It provides for changes of party membership in that it only allows a member to change membership after the expiry of 12 months after the date of previous elections of all municipal councils.
By this provision, we are not giving people a blank cheque. These changes will not be allowed during the 12 months preceding the date of the next election of all municipal councils. Furthermore, the said changes will only be allowed if the members wishing to leave a party represent not less than 10% of the seats held by the party concerned. The same requirement will be applied when parties want to merge or sudivide.
To make sure that there is no disruption in Government work or the political arena, that is, the movement by members from one party to the other or the merging or subdivision of parties, there is a limited period for that to happen. This year, for example, the movement or merger can only take place during the first 15 days following the commencement of section 158A and again from the first to the 15th day of September. In the years thereafter, such periods will last from 1 February to 15 February and from 1 September to 15 September of each year. I hope that I have simplified this as far as I could.
There are members, that is MPLs and councillors, who have become slaves in their own parties. Even if that particular party has become more and more irrelevant in our political arena, members are stuck with it. Even if leaders of those parties are dictators, members are stuck with those leaders. By this legislation, we are freeing members to exercise their rights and leave those irrelevant parties to join vibrant and relevant parties like the ANC. [Laughter.] [Applause.] This Bill is introducing this new principle which is not contained in the membership Bill in that it provides that during the period allowed for the above changes of membership, mergers or subdivisions of parties, no party represented in a municipal council may suspend or terminate the party membership of a councillor representing that party, as the Minister said, or perform any act whatsoever which may cause such a councillor to be disqualified from holding office as a councillor or change such councillor’s position on a party list relating to the said municipal council.
To avoid people moving from party A, B and C within a short space of time, the Bill provides that during these 15-day window periods a councillor is allowed to change party membership only once, and at the same time a party may merge or subdivide only once, as the Minister rightly said. So no councillor will, like a frog, jump from one party to another at random.
For those who might have forgotten, this debate started more than 10 years ago during Codesa in Kempton Park. As one of those who were involved in those negotiations, I would like to say that parties like the DP were very vocal in urging parties to agree that we should have these provisions in our Constitution. I hope that they have not changed their position.
I would like to conclude by making the following announcement: From the 13th to the 15th of this month the select committee and the portfolio committee will be conducting public hearings here in Parliament about the same BillS. I want to urge all stakeholders to come and participate in these hearings. They can do that by sending in written submissions or by coming here and making oral submissions. As Parliament we have done our part. It is up to stakeholders to do the same. A goal is a dream with a deadline. Love your country enough to talk about these Bills. [Applause.]
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, my party has debated and anguished over this legislation. We have consulted widely. It is our considered opinion that this legislation is wrong-minded and that it is, at best, premature.
The whole question of on what basis members should be elected is currently under review, perhaps to get closer to the German electoral model on which our Constitution is largely based, where something like 50% of the seats in Parliament and in the other legislature, the provincial parliament, might be constituted on a constituency basis. I believe Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and Idasa are looking at this on behalf of the Government.
Why then should we now come with a short-term interim measure which gives entirely the wrong impression? Why, in our view, the indecent haste? The next election is around the corner. In a very short time we will be preparing for it. It is only two years away. We therefore believe that the measure is unnecessary and undesirable at this time. We do not believe, also, that it is desired by the majority of councillors, certainly not those that we have consulted in the Cape province.
We believe that what is proposed is tantamount to gerrymandering of the Constitution to serve the short-term desires of a particular political party. We do not think, whatever the merits may be, that that is the right way to go about working with the Constitution. We believe that if and when the parliaments of our country are fully or partly constituted on a constituency basis - let me say that I think that was agreed between the major parties at Codesa in that this was the ideal way for us to constitute our Parliament - were we to move in that direction, which we partially have done with the local government, with directly elected ward members whose names appear on the ballot paper, that a new situation will arise, a new situation in which crossing of the floor would, in fact, be conventional and correct and in line with the conventions in most of the great democracies. But, in our view, we are not there yet.
Our system is currently a list system of proportional representation. We believe that what is proposed in this Bill runs the risk of skewing the principle of proportionality, as set out in the Constitution. We agree with the judges’ comments with regard to the certification of the Constitution of the RSA 1996(4) SA 744 on page 831, on which they make the following comments. They say, on page 185:
It is the party that faces the voters during the succeeding election and has to justify its acts in the previous legislative period.
On page 186 they say:
Under a list system of proportional representation, it is parties that the electorate vote for and parties which must be accountable to the electorate. A party which abandons its manifesto in a way not accepted by the electorate would probably lose at the next election.
What is the most telling is what they say on page 187:
It also prevents parties in power from enticing members of small parties to defect from the party upon whose lists they were elected to joining the governing party. If this were permitted it could enable the governing party to obtain a special majority which it might not otherwise be able to muster, and which is not a reflection of the views of the electorate.
This is according to the judges of our Constitutional Court. Is this not precisely what has happened in the Western Cape parliament? A party elected on the basis of keeping the ANC out, whatever the merits of that may have been, has ushered in the ANC little more than a year after the election of that party. [Interjections.]
Therefore, we are opposed to the legislation at this time. We trust the Justice committee of the National Assembly will take note. [Time expired.]
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, the Bill before us encompasses an amendment to the Constitution, which will allow for public representatives at local government level to change their political allegiance, or, to put it in another way, to cross the floor.
The matter comes to this House before the process of public hearings has been completed. The explanation for adopting this process given to a colleague of mine this morning was that the Constitution required the Bill to be introduced in this way and that if he wanted to change it, he should approach the Constitutional Review Committee.
With the greatest respect to the person who expressed this view, the Constitution does not require the Bill to be introduced in this House before the process of public hearings is completed. The Constitution and the Rules of this honourable House allow the Bill to be introduced in this manner. There is an important distinction here, and I am going to repeat it. The Constitution allows for this process; it does not require it.
The DP believes that despite the fact that no decision is made by this House, it is unseemly for this House to debate a matter before the citizens and the electorate of South Africa have had an opportunity to give voice to their opinions on this topic.
We are compelled to ask: What is the purpose of initiating the debate in this way, before the voice of the people has been heard, when Parliament itself called for such opinion to be directed to it? If this is not contempt of the parliamentary process, it is certainly contempt of public opinion.
Is this another grubby deal behind the backs of the voters between the New NP and the ANC?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! If the hon member could take his seat.
Mr M V MOOSA: Chairperson, will the hon member take a question regarding the correction of his views?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Would the hon member take a question?
Mr L G LEVER: No, Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: The hon member is not prepared to take a question.
Mr L G LEVER: Is this another grubby deal behind the backs of the voters between the New NP and the ANC? We know how sensitive the New NP is on this topic. In the region of 10 by-elections have taken place since the New NP left the DA, and they have not challenged any one of them. In a week’s time there is a by-election in Hermanus, a former NP stronghold, and still they will not face the voters of South Africa to test public opinion on their conduct. Everybody knows why, and I do not have to elaborate on this issue. [Interjections.]
With regard to the concept of a public representative being allowed to change his or her political allegiance, the DP supports such a concept as a feature of democracy, provided it takes place within the framework of the broader electoral reform envisaged.
As regards the Bill in its present form, the DP will not support it, inter alia, because it has the potential to destabilise many local governments. To allow local government councillors to cross the floor every six months within the relevant window period may mean a change of administration every six months in those local governments in which the balance of power is held by a slim margin.
This matter was recently discussed at our congress, and it was resolved that, and I quote:
Congress supports the principle of allowing public representatives to cross the floor as a feature of democracy, does not support the proposed legislation in its present form and mandates the parliamentary colleagues to introduce amendments that will promote stability in governance, especially in local councils, where regular opportunities for defection may cause instability. Congress furthermore notes that the proposed legislation must also be evaluated in the light of the possible changes to the electoral system evidenced by the appointment of the Van Zyl Slabbert commission.
With regard to the instability, we would prefer to see, in local government, that the crossing-of-the-floor legislation is only allowed, for example, once a year in the window period. These are in essence the objections and the position of my party at the moment.[Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon members, before I call on the next speaker I would like to deal with what I regard as a fairly serious accusation and statement imputing bad faith on the part of the presiding officer, myself, because I have placed this matter for debate on the Order Paper on the basis of the Rules of the National Council of Provinces. These Rules indicate that the Chairperson must table the particulars submitted by the Minister at the first sitting of the Council - I repeat, the first sitting - after their receipt. To imply that the Chairperson is playing a party-political role in submitting the particulars for the debate is an unacceptable imputation of my character and integrity, and I will not accept such a statement being made with regard to myself.
I therefore would like the hon member to withdraw the statements he has made and the implication that a party-political role is being played when the Rules - and the particular Rule is 85(2) - of the National Council of Provinces are referred to.
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, I have no knowledge of when these issues are received and I do not directly impute any bad faith on your part and, to that extent, I withdraw the statements that I have made.
Mr M V MOOSA: On a point of order, Chairperson, there is one other matter regarding this particular issue. The hon member has also misread and misrepresented the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. I do not know what the procedure in the House should be when a member represents the Constitution to be something it is not. But I would assume that the House should probably set up an inquiry.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! That is not a point of order, hon member. If you wish to assist the member with respect to the Constitution you may do so outside this House. The member made particular statements about the manner in which this subject was placed. This relates to the role of the presiding officer and the Rules of this House, hence the correction.
What you are raising is a matter, really, of information that perhaps the members could share outside the House and not on the floor. I have previously indicated that I really believe that it is important for members of Parliament who represent our country to know the Constitution of our country. But, I believe, that could be pursued outside the House and not here.
Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, as it appears from both this Bill itself and the memorandum on the objects thereof, this Bill is closely linked to the Loss or Retention of Membership of National and Provincial Legislatures Bill, the ``membership Bill’’. It would be totally illogical to have a so- called antidefection provision operating at local government level if there is no longer such a clause at the national or provincial level.
As is stated in the Bill, the need therefore exists for uniformity within the three spheres of government regarding loss or retention of membership of any legislature or municipal council in the event of a change of party membership, or mergers, or subdivision, or subdivision and merger of parties.
Whereas item 23A of Schedule 2 to the interim Constitution of 1993, which was incorporated into our present Constitution, provides that an Act of Parliament may be passed to amend that item and item 23 in order to provide for the manner in which it will be possible for a member of a legislature who ceases to be a member of the party which nominated that member to retain membership of such legislature, and any existing party to merge with another party, or any party to subdivide whilst allowing members of a legislature affected by such changes to retain membership of such legislature, the Constitution at present does not provide for similar changes of party membership, mergers between parties or subdivisions of parties in the context of local government.
This Bill will now address this lacuna as there can certainly not be any reason whatsoever to differentiate in this regard between public representatives in the provincial and national sphere and public representatives in the local government sphere.
Public hearings will still be held in the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development of the National Assembly in respect of this Bill and the membership Bill.
I do not think it appropriate to deal with the details of the Bill at this stage, but rather wish to address the principles underlying it, which principles we fully support.
The NP, which it was at that stage, together with the DP and the IFP, opposed the antidefection clause in the Constitution at the certification hearing of the 1996 Constitution in the Constitutional Court. I personally appeared on behalf of the NP in the Constitutional Court on that occasion.
One would have hoped that these parties still supported these principles and that they did not get cold feet in the meantime. I was quite amazed by the previous speaker now having changed their tune to such an extent. One wonders what they are running scared of suddenly. [Interjections.]
During 1994 and 1995, by way of a private member’s Bill proposed by Mr Colin Eglin, the DP sought to have section 43(b) deleted from the interim Constitution. During 1996, in the Constitutional Assembly and its committees, the DP opposed the inclusion of item 23A of Annexure A of Schedule 6 in the new democratic Constitution. And it was said that the decision of the DP to oppose the original section 43(b) and the current item 23A was not taken lightly, nor without serious consideration of all the complex and interacting factors in the composition, election and the functioning of South Africa’s national legislature.
So what is the position there now? Is it that they feel that this position may be the case as far as the national and provincial legislatures are concerned, but that at local government level councillors should not have that same opportunity, whereas we certainly regard the sphere of local government as an independent sphere of government. We believe that councillors should have the same rights in this regard as other public representatives, and that they are public representatives just as others at provincial and national levels.
An antidefection clause is, in most parliamentary democracies all over the world, held to be irreconcilable with the principles of representative democracy. The free mandate applies - and here I refer to what the ACDP said - in many Western democracies irrespective of the type of electoral system, be it constituency-based, or where all members or a portion of the members are elected via a party list system of proportional representation. That is the position in most democracies all over the world.
Members of legislatures or councillors should represent not only the interests of their constituency, their party or their ward, but should represent the best interests of the entire nation, province or municipality. I think that is what the previous speaker should maybe take into account - that as public representatives we owe it to the nation to represent not only our small ward, constituency or party. If legislatures and councillors are not free to form their own conclusions independently, legislatures and councils become irrelevant talk-shops. Debates then have no meaning because the persuasive force of debate and logic is lost. This is certainly not in accordance with the principles of democracy. An antidefection provision, in effect, makes the Government of the country, the province or the municipality, accountable to a few party executives, which is most undemocratic. The measure of the accountability of a legislature can never only be seen as the calling of the people to the ballot at intervals of several years to respond to attempts by political parties to justify their acts.
If members of legislatures and councillors were to be no more than mere subordinates, they would be incapable of responsibility. In this regard, I refer to an editorial of The Argus of 9 February 1995, which aptly described the position as follows:
The provision that members of Parliament who quit their party must automatically resign their seats makes individual parliamentarians too beholden to party discipline. It turns them into caucus-voting fodder, effete pawns in the political chess game which, apart from making for boring politics, is simply not in the public interest. Historically, in South African politics, crossing the floor or taking to the cross-benches has been an accepted component of dynamic democracy.
A fact of our recent history which is easily overlooked is that if the right-wing members of the then National Party could not resign from the NP without losing their seats, and therefore did not resign and form the Conservative Party, the NP would most probably not have been in a position to bring about the fundamental changes which were necessary to bring about the new dispensation in South Africa at the time when they did so. Our recent history would then have been totally different, and we would most probably have ended up in a bloody civil war, which could have destroyed all of South Africa and all of us.
The interesting thing is that in the DP’s submission to an ad hoc committee, they described in detail why there should be no anti-defection provision in our parliamentary system. They say the purpose of the Constitution is to provide the country with the basis for good governance, not to provide party leaders with blunt instruments for opposing party discipline. They say it places extraordinary, coercive powers in the hands of party leaders, indeed so extraordinary that they have the potential to undermine the concepts of transparency and democracy within the political parties themselves. They further say it prevents, in an arbitrary, undemocratic and often secretive way, the natural and evolutionary process of political regrouping and political realignment from taking place. It freezes and fossilises the process of party politics in our country, irrespective of the moods and trends of the people outside this House.
This was said by the DP in 1997, under the signature of Mr Colin Eglin. What has happened in the meantime? [Interjections.] It is still the same for councillors in local government. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Cllr M DIKOKO (Salga): Chairperson, I am here on behalf of Salga. At Salga we view ourselves as a sphere of government, and not a tier of government. We have an equal right to deliberate on these issues which directly affect us.
Firstly, as Salga, we wholeheartedly support the Bill. However, there are just a few minor issues which we would like to raise. The first is the concern regarding the consistency with which national, provincial and local government are treated in terms of the Bill. When one looks at the Bill, one sees that national and provincial government are not dealt with as elaborately as local government. Our view is that local government should be treated the same as national and provincial government, while details can be dealt with as in the case of the Local Government Municipal Structures Act. It should not be amended in the Constitution. We also feel that, if that is then the case, section 158A does not need to be included the Constitution.
The second aspect is that Salga is raising a concern, a serious one for that matter, with regard to the frequency, that is February and September. As local government we feel that it is very problematic and might destabilise local government. We feel that it would be best to have this just once, in September. The reason we are raising a concern about February is that, firstly, as things stand currently, this would be at a time that we are reviewing our IDPs. Secondly, it would be at a time when we will be dealing with our budgetary processes. If this applies in February, it might have a serious impact on local government. Currently, this is not the case with regard to the national and provincial spheres of government. We are only raising this concern from local government’s point of view. We are aware that there is a process of trying to integrate all three budgetary processes, national, provincial and local, but we are talking of the current state of affairs.
Thirdly, we want to request the drafters to reconsider the fact that a ward councillor can cross the floor to become an independent councillor, while a PR councillor must move from one political party to another. We will appreciate it if that disparity and inconsistency could be considered, but this is not a serious thing.
Finally, there is the issue of subsections 5(b)(i) and (ii), as well as
section 6(b), which refer to the municipal manager. Our view is that a
municipal manager is an employee of the council. It would be best to
replace the term municipal manager'' withIEC’’, because they are best
suited to deal with electoral aspects.
We are very thankful for the time the Council has allocated and members’ generosity. We want to use only the time allocated. [Applause.]
Ms J L KGOALI: Chairperson, it is not mere coincidence that this Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment Bill aims to regulate changes of party membership, mergers and subdivision of parties at local government level. The provisions of this Bill are largely modelled on the principles contained in the membership Bill, which does not make provision for local government.
Section 46(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa requires an electoral system for the National Assembly that results in proportional representation. Similarly, the same Constitution, in section 105(1)(d), requires an electoral system for provincial legislatures that results in general in proportional representation.
On the other hand, section 157 of the Constitution requires an electoral system for local government comprising either proportional representation, or proportional representation combined with a system of ward representation, ensuring that the total number of members elected from each party reflects the total proportion of the votes recorded for those parties. Therefore, this Bill stems from the fact that no provision has been made in the Constitution in respect of local government for a councillor to retain membership of a municipal council, where such a councillor ceases to be a member of the party which nominated that councillor, and also does not provide for any party to merge with another party, or any party to subdivide into more than one party, or any party to subdivide and any one of the subdivisions to merge with another party, whilst allowing a member of the council affected by such changes to retain membership of that council.
This Bill before us is carefully designed to achieve uniformity within the three spheres of government - the hon Dikoko represents a sphere, not a tier of government - regarding the loss or retention of membership of a legislature or municipal council in the event of a change of party membership or the subdivision or merger of parties.
Our Constitution, as we have observed, allows for various permutations in the electoral system and these were left for legislation to decide upon. The party system was decided on. In practice one first waited for the election results before adjusting the numbers of the seats so that they would be proportionally representative. In terms of the ward side of the election, the candidate who received the largest number of votes would win the election. District councils were different because they did not have wards. Councillors were elected from party lists. A distinction was made between proportional representation and the ward councillor. An independent ward councillor may not join a party and a ward councillor elected on a party ticket may not became an independent. The present structure allows for the councillors to construct subcouncils, and a potential problem of crossing the floor was that, should crossing take place at either council or subcouncil level, the other councils would then not necessarily be proportionally representative.
This situation necessitated this constitutional amendment, and I would also like to share some of its provisions with hon members. I would like to concentrate on the new principle which has been introduced by the Bill and was not contained in the membership Bill. It provides that during a period allowed for the changes of membership, mergers or subdivisions of parties, no party represented in a municipality may suspend or terminate the party membership of a councillor representing that party or perform any act whatsoever which may cause such a councillor to be disqualified from holding office as a councillor or change such councillor’s position on a party list related to the said municipal council.
Lastly, this Bill provides that during a window period allowed for crossings, mergers or subdivisions, a councillor is allowed to change party membership only once and a party may merge or subdivide only once.
I also want to concur with the hon the Minister that this legislation does affect our House as the National Council of Provinces because if any movements take place in the province, definitely the NCOP is affected.
I do not want to comment on what the hon Lever said. I think a party that should be having a problem with this Bill is the ANC, because of its majority. Should we not fear that we are going to lose the majority of our members to other parties? Because we are concerned as a party that we need to give freedom to every individual to do whatever he or she thinks is right, this Bill is before us. The hon member’s cold feet will show in the next elections.
As for the hon member from Salga, I am not sure about the role of Salga as we have been trying to figure it out in this House. Maybe their participation, if they take their correct position in this House and begin to participate in some issues that are being deliberated on and that affect them as a sphere of government, would help them to understand some of the issues that are being raised here.
We therefore invite them to come on board. Let us deliberate on the issues so that we all move together as the three spheres of government. I support the Bill. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I first and foremost thank hon members for what I think has been a very good debate on this Bill. I certainly have no intention of diluting Mr Matthee’s appropriate response to hon Mr Lever’s remarks. Instead I will just commend Mr Matthee for an erudite response.
One would have thought that the DP in particular would have been overjoyed at the prospect of these proposed amendments, because, as has been said by Mr Matthee, the DP was at the forefront of those who were saying no to an antidefection clause in the Constitution. Perhaps those of us who listened eventually became sympathetic to them and persuaded the ANC that we should have a clause such as we had in item 23A of the interim Constitution.
I think it is silly, really, for anybody then to turn around and say there are all sorts of conspiracy theories at play here. There are none. We are, if anything, bending over backwards to accommodate those hon members and in the process they do not even appreciate that. The hon Kent Durr accuses us of participating in gerrymandering the Constitution. He cannot be said to be gerrymandering a constitution that allows us to do what we are doing. [Interjections.] It says we may do so by means of an Act of Parliament. Now, when we then do it exactly that way, the hon member cannot, for God’s sake, be right in saying that that is gerrymandering. Then again, a whole lot of people exhibit the very interesting tendency of a disjuncture or a disconnection between their lips and their heads. One does hear these silly statements.
There is no gerrymandering here. We are recognising a reality in the Republic of South Africa, namely that there are people who do not want to belong to the parties which brought them into this institution and similar legislative institutions in the country. Indeed, short of a fundamental overhaul of the electoral system, we will do what the Constitution allows us to do in order to accommodate those people. It makes it very easy for them to make choices. They cease being unwilling prisoners or captives of parties they no longer want to belong to.
Madam Chairperson dealt with the question of how this Bill came to be before this House. I want to say that she dealt with this only in part. If one looks carefully at Section 745(c) of the Constitution itself, one will read - I am assuming hon members can read - that it says:
At least 30 days before a Bill amending the Constitution …
Which this one purports to be doing -
… is introduced in terms of section(73)2, the person or committee intending to introduce the Bill must …
It says must''. It does not saymay’’. It would say, ``shall’’ in the
more complex legal language -
… submit, in accordance with the rules and orders of the National Council of Provinces, those particulars to the council for a public debate …
I leave the rest to those who do care to read it. We are doing nothing less and nothing more than that. If this is not a public debate then I would have to be convinced of what it is.
I want to venture that this is a public debate which we are holding in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules of this Council. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! As has already been indicated, this Bill is only before us for debate. We take this opportunity to thank the hon the Minister for clarifying some of the issues that some of us seem not to be clear about.
Debate concluded.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Order disposed of without debate.
Report adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution. THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE RECENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN ZIMBABWE
(Subject for Discussion)
Ms C S BOTHA: Chairperson, in 1980 I cut out of the newspaper a photograph of a young black man returning home to his father. He was in rags and he looked very tired, but his father looked very proud. He returned after having won the bush war and the photograph was entitled ``Coming home’’. It was for me, as for many other South Africans, something the Nationalists would not understand. It is a vindication of the belief that all who loved Africa belonged in her and that she belonged to them. I have it still.
In the 1980s Robert Mugabe was elected President and, as an SABC interviewer recently commented, he was the man who brought his people liberation, education, health, loads of prosperity and now land. Twenty years on we look again. Robert Mugabe has been re-elected president and all the hope has faded from my picture. What was once the most successful and peaceful country in the world, with no unemployment, the lowest crime rate and thriving tourism and a currency stronger than the US Dollar, now officially has 60% unemployment, 120% inflation, no tourism and it takes 400 Zim dollars to purchase one US dollar. Starving is rife and the once thriving farming sector has been destroyed. Five hundred illegal immigrants cross the northern borders to South Africa per day. This is the state of our neighbour. This is not distant Palestine or Israel. This is what lies directly north of the Limpopo. This is our entry into Africa and into Nepad. This is where we are joined at the hip. Whatever happens in Zimbabwe will have an effect on South Africa. The debate can only be about the degree.
At the World Economic Forum, before the elections, we asked if the manner in which countries such as South Africa deal with the crisis in Zimbabwe will not be a test case for Nepad. President Mbeki agreed that Zimbabwe was a cause for concern and that there was consensus in SADC that whosoever was elected President must be - here comes the word we see time and time again
- ``legitimately’’ elected to that position. Hence the situation of the hapless Sam Motsuenyane, being placed in the ridiculous position of having to declare the universally deplored election, characterised by fundamental and serious violation of the rule of the law and human rights over an extended period of time, legitimate. This preordained position caused immense damage to South Africa’s credibility.
It was Harare’s suspension by the Commonwealth which saved Nepad at the G8 and thus ourselves. In October 2001 the President spelled out the preconditions for the achievement of Nepad:
We have to address the negative perception amongst investors who see Africa as a high risk area.
Rightly so, for as we know, after our R25 million investigation, the displeasure with which Zimbabwe was viewed by the world was expressed through the devaluing rand. Add to this the erosion of productivity and buying power in Zimbabwe, knocking out South Africa’s biggest export market on the African continent, and the effects of the presidential election are written in bold letters across our balance sheets.
To date, interestingly enough, I have not seen a single condemnation from the ANC of Zanu-PF’s latest assault on the country’s Indian business community. The War Veterans Association recently said that they would now target the Asians, accused of being economic looters. Be sure that it will not go unnoticed in South Africa’s Indian community, nor by international investors or the underwriters of Nepad.
The Mugabe land grab is what rests most heavily on South Africa and on the psyche and the economy of South Africa. What has happened in agriculture in Zimbabwe has nothing to do with land reform and a minimal connection with drought. In his abuse of power and patronage, Mugabe has systematically destroyed the agriculture of that country. Zimbabwe has gone from being net food exporter - and so it should be, considering its climate - to the situation today where Mugabe has been forced to declare a national disaster in an effort to stave off mass starvation. Mugabe has created this starvation in Zimbabwe. Of course we must help and South Africa will carry the burden, but we must also stop the rot.
[Die skepe sal vol graan in die hawens lê, terwyl mense sterf weens honger.’’ Hierdie onheilspellende woorde kom van mnr Bully Botma, Voorsitter van Graan SA. [Mr Bully Botma, Chairperson of SA Grain, made the ominous statement that ships would be docked in the harbour, laden with grain, while people were dying of hunger.]
Regular warnings of impending doom were airily dismissed by the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs and the Minister of Transport. Some 12 months ago Minister Didiza paid more attention to the clownish rantings of Minister Made, arranging workshops on how land reform could be achieved by means of the Zimbabwean model, than to the predictions of the present estimated shortage of maize in neighbouring countries of two million ton per month. Our dilapidated rail system can handle 130 000 tons per month. Mr Mugabe is today still, according to the news, intensifying his relentless legislation to drive productive farmers and farmworkers off the land.
Donors have been withdrawing from the African continent at an alarming rate, accelerated by the Zimbabwe Democracy and Recovery Act of 2001. This directly affects South African civil society, which is also dependent on donor funding. Imagine the effect on international donors of the Mugabe supporters who celebrated their electoral victory by parading coffins draped with US flags and pictures of opposition leaders.
Game conservation and transnational parks are an integral part of South Africa’s potential tourist market. The situation of game in Zimbabwe is becoming more dire by the day. I am also very, very concerned about what is happening on account of foot-and-mouth disease, which will surely cross the Limpopo and its brought-down fences and bring us back to the near tragedy of Camperdown. Considering the dismantling of Onderstepoort, our first line of defence against African animal diseases, our stock farming may never recover from that potential threat. There are very many fields on which …
Ms Q D MAHLANGU: You do not care about the Zimbabwean … [Interjections.]
Ms C S BOTHA: The member should care about the black people dying in Zimbabwe. I shall then take her seriously.
As is the case in South Africa, a loyal, watchful and independent opposition in Zimbabwe may yet be the deciding factor in countering the destructive effects of the recent presidential election in Zimbabwe. [Interjections.]
What racist remarks is that hon member making now? Mr Chairperson, could you perhaps ask the hon member to make her racist comments out loud?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Would you continue to address the House, hon member?
Ms C S BOTHA: I am addressing the House, Chairperson. It is interesting that in this House at a time when we are supposed to have moved away from racism and are looking at ways of making sure that racism is not a feature of this continent, all one can think of is the fact that whites in Zimbabwe can be sacrificed to racism. As long as we pay attention … [Interjections.]
If the lady wishes I will also look at Alexandra. I certainly do that for my own home town. I do not know what she does in Alexandra, if she does anything at all. [Interjections.]
Mr J L THERON: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: Could you please call that member to order and protect the speaker?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I will do so, but I do not need your advice. [Interjections.] Order! I do not need your advice, hon member. [Interjections.] Could the hon member proceed, please?
Ms C S BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I must say the hon member Mahlangu does not distract my attention at all. This debate is about Zimbabwe, and therefore I will talk about Zimbabwe. When we have a debate about Alexandra, I will certainly talk about Alexandra, if it will make her happy.
In South Africa a loyal, watchful and independent opposition, such as the one presented by the MDC in Zimbabwe, may yet be the deciding factor in countering the destructive effects of the recent presidential election in Zimbabwe and its spillover into South Africa and, believe me, also into the economy of Alexandra. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Hon members should not expect to hear what is good for them, and they must give other members the opportunity to speak.
Mr R Z NOGUMLA: Chairperson, allow me to begin by paying tribute to the late hon Minister of Safety and Security, Comrade Steve Tshwete. I am not doing this in order to undermine the statement that has been made, but because of the history that I shared with that comrade.
I worked with him when I was on a delegation from the University of Transkei and he was on a delegation from the Border region during the formation of the UDF, and we kept in touch since that time. When he went into exile, he was my commissar in the army. The day I was arrested in King William’s Town was the day on which he was coming back after having been sent by the ANC to come and brief the democratic structures in the country. That it why on this day I feel I must say something before I address myself to the topic.
He was a man of many humble characteristics and qualities, a man who shone a light wherever he went. No words could describe his enormous contribution to this country. His words, actions and commitment to the people have left a legacy for us to follow and, indeed, to ensure that this century does become an African century. Therefore the debate on Zimbabwe today is very important, for it touches the very core of our vision of making this century an African century.
Before I get to that issue, I would like to respond to a statement which was made by the speaker before me that the ANC is silent about what is happening in Zimbabwe. This reminds me of the days of the apartheid parliament in South Africa. The founders of that member’s party were also there. When the South African government was invading and attacking Zimbabwe, and supporting the people who were running away from Zimbabwe and who wanted to topple Mugabe’s government, that member’s party never said a single word to say no. [Interjections.]
During that time the ANC fought in Zimbabwe, not because we thought Zimbabwe was South Africa, but because we were assisting in the formation of and the struggle for liberation in Zimbabwe. Again, after independence, the ANC worked very hard to prevent the country from getting into civil war. By that time they were assisting in destabilising Zimbabwe, hence the formation of the alliance between Zapu and Zanu. The government that is in power is a government of the alliance of these two parties.
There are two parties in Zimbabwe today. The party led by Mr Tsvangirai is also leading Zimbabwe. The issue for us is that we have to assist the people of Zimbabwe, and not just blame them and make public statements about poverty in Zimbabwe, as if in the past they were assisted to get out of poverty. They pulled themselves out of poverty on their own and were not assisted by the then South African government and the parties which are here in Parliament. [Interjections.]
The eyes of the continent today are, amongst other situations we are facing, on Zimbabwe, particularly the post-election period. This period has posed one important question, and that is: What is to become of Zimbabwe after the election? We have heard both optimistic and pessimistic opinions about the fate of Zimbabwe. Some are rather more pessimistic than others.
Indeed, in following a particular route, we should adopt a more pragmatic and optimistic approach. Instead of spending time blaming, moaning and complaining about the wrongness and the rightness of a situation which has already occurred, we should dwell more on coming up with what will benefit Zimbabweans and on building the Zimbabwean economy so it can achieve high and sustained economic growth, in order to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe enjoy a rising and decent standard of living.
The focus for us as fellow Africans should be on how we can be of assistance to our sister country so that it can achieve sustainable peace and prosperity. What can Zimbabweans do to come up with sustainable and workable solutions which will ensure that peace, prosperity and democracy are sustained in Zimbabwe? It is important to note not only that Zimbabwe is our neighbour, but also that we share a similar history and therefore understand some of the challenges it has had to face and is still facing. We also share a common destiny, which is that of a broader African success. However, we cannot obtain African success if one of our fellow African countries is socially, politically and economically unstable.
We are also part of that Africa which is marginalised economically and politically in global terms. Zimbabwe is also one of our trading partners whose role is central both to the objectives of Nepad and SADC. Zimbabwe is part of us and we are part of it, and we are all part of the greater Africa. Whatever happens to one of us will affect all of us, whether directly or indirectly. Indeed, divided we will definitely fall.
It is thus very important that we do not lose focus of our shared vision of African unity and solidarity. [Interjections.] The Renaissance, sustainable socioeconomic development, and growing global village, in which the richer are becomimg richer and the poor are becoming poorer, are a realities. It is therefore crucial that when we look at the situation in Zimbabwe, we should focus on coming up with workable solutions that will lead Zimbabwe to prosperity.
Zimbabweans took a very important step not so many months ago. They went to the polls to vote for a government that will serve their needs. The elections, though not perfect, were relatively peaceful. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Disgraceful!
Ms Q D MAHLANGU: Who are you to judge?
Mr R Z NOGUMLA: The question that needs to be addressed is that of a positive way forward. The way forward, I believe, is for Zimbabweans to realise that their fate lies in their own hands, and that they need to come together in search of reconciliation and unity for their common good.
Who can better understand and extend a hand of support to that process than we in South Africa, as we share a similar past? After our own 1994 democratic elections, we were faced with similar challenges. I cannot begin to emphasise the importance of the difficult challenge of land reform, as we have witnessed both in Zimbabwe and in our very own country.
Land reform in any civilisation has always been a very challenging area to deal with. There is no doubt that, like South Africa, Zimbabwe has experienced extensive land dispossession of the indigenous majority. Therefore the land question should constitute an important part of our respective national agendas, for it is a sensitive area that unfortunately needs to be dealt with in order to transcend the past and correct the wrongs that were done in the past.
Unless the issue of land restitution is addressed, we are bound to have massive problems. How we deal with it, though, has to coincide with respect for human rights, the rule of law and democracy. How Zimbabwe deals with it, requires that all Zimbabweans come together to come up with a workable solution that does not jeopardise their future, but instead invests in it.
In conclusion, what is important is that the ills of the past and the challenges that any country faces must not become obstacles to progress, development, prosperity and democracy in any country. It is therefore crucial that Zimbabweans do not allow those ills to be obstacles, but join hands in deciding the fate of their country and tackling the problems that they are facing, thereby ensuring that peace and prosperity prevail. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Hon members, I think the noise is becoming irritating. I would not want to bother anybody again, or call anybody to order.
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I have to say before I begin that it gives one no pleasure to witness and talk about the tragedy that is taking place on our northern border. It is bad news for them, but it is bad news for us.
In that respect, of course, my hon colleague who has just sat down was quite correct. What is happening in Zimbabwe and the spillover into the Northern Province of South Africa and elsewhere is no surprise to the ACDP, because we warned of what was likely to happen well over a year ago in motion after motion in this House. That nation, which had a currency stronger than the American dollar, was a major food exporter and definitely the most prosperous country in Africa, has been reduced to powerless ruin.
These motions were opposed and pooh-poohed by Government at the time. Just as with Aids, Government simply chose to ignore the facts. The ongoing actions of a delinquent Zimbabwean president, and the government on our borders, has already had and continues to have a far-reaching and negative impact on our country, on countries in our region and on our continent. Millions face starvation and we are seeing the destruction of wealth and wealth-producing structures on a huge scale in that country. We are seeing the looting of a country by a political elite that has not been legitimately elected.
The South African Government’s contribution of handling that state with kid gloves - and I am not now questioning the motives of the South African Government, I am sure the motives are excellent - but shielding them has come at a terrible price for South Africa, both materially and in reducing our credibility generally, including our commitment to human rights and good governance, let alone the rule of law. It stands in stark contrast with the strident judgment and partial position of our Government on Israel and the problems they are experiencing.
Now we are sitting with the situation which is almost incapable of resolution, with a delinquent Zimbabwean government and a rogue president that have created a crisis that could run on for years. First there is a maize shortage. Next week it will be eggs, milk, fruit, oil, seeds, fuel. I do not know who is paying their fuel bill now, and the electricity which they are drawing from us, and will take from us this winter.
What is the Zimbabwean government’s answer to the crisis? It is to loot even more farms and to drive the country deeper into hopelessness - and yet the winter lies ahead. The maize crop is estimated to 20% of demand at 200 000 tons, and they have no money to pay for imported food.
Our Government’s position is that Mugabe and the MDC should talk to each other, and of course if they would that would be wonderful. Nobody questions the sentiment that they put their heads together. But unhappily it is an unrealistic objective. There is no way the MDC will talk to Zanu- PF unless such talks are accompanied by the announcement of the retirement of Robert Mugabe with a commitment to fresh elections within, say, six months. To expect anything else is unrealistic.
There are no solutions for Zimbabwe which include President Mugabe in anything but a transitory role. The problem is that failure to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis and South Africa’s strident pro-PLO position come together in a double whammy that is bound to derail or threaten Nepad. I have personal experience of that. I speak to businessmen almost daily. It is the common refrain that I am hearing. Certainly it will dampen enthusiasm for Nepad and divert resources from it. These actions send a signal which the world has noted. The South African Government must look carefully to its duty to its own citizens and interests, and rethink our position.
Thank God that in Zimbabwe there is a democratic successor, the MDC, that could act as a safety net to restoring democracy and prosperity to that country. Let them draw on South Africans to help them rebuild that country. We hope it does not take too long to do that.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, South Africa and Zimbabwe need hope, not just prophets of doom. But to look at the Zimbabwean situation, we have to look a bit wider. We cannot look at it in isolation.
There are certain questions that should be asked about Africa and the plans on the table to turn around Africa as a whole. When President Mbeki became the second democratically elected president in 1999, a general pessimism towards Africa prevailed in the outside world. From the West, there was a perception that Africa was governed, in general, by dictators who very often had no respect for human rights and democracy. On the other hand, Africans in general perceived the West as a group of white governments with racist agendas against Africa. Dialogue between these two groups often ended in mere criticism of each other, and not in listening to each other.
President Mbeki knew about these two positions and all the negativity around it, but he was committed to building bridges. He believed from the outset that a sincere partnership with the West should be built. He spoke about the need for an African Renaissance even before he became President. But what does this entail? Directly and indirectly, President Mbeki called on African leaders to commit themselves to clean and accountable government, to democracy and respect for basic human rights. This was a search to integrate Africa into the global economy through free-market principles.
As a counter-gesture, the West must react to the aforementioned willingness by opening up its markets to Africa to help reduce the continent’s US $300 billion debt. Three years later President Mbeki is seen as achieving the transformation of the dream of an African Renaissance into reality, with definite policies and action plans. It started off in 1999, when the Organisation of African Unity gave President Mbeki, President Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Bouteflika of Algeria the mandate to convince the G7 countries to get involved in reducing the continent’s debt burden and to assist in eradicating the information technology backlog in Africa.
This led to the establishment of Map, the Millennium African Project. During this period President Wade of Senegal started his own plan called Omega, but Map and Omega amalgamated and formed the New African Initiative. During October last year the African leaders worked on a more detailed approach and Nepad was formed.
But what does this entail? It entails that Africa must be politically and economically accountable. Doing the above should create a climate in which foreign capital can flow into South Africa and Africa. The industrial countries will then give Africa bigger access to their markets, help to reduce or even eradicate the African debt burden and guarantee help to Africa.
Now the questions that will have to be addressed to keep Nepad on track are the following: How are - and this brings balance into the whole argument and not just doom and gloom - the African states going to monitor each other to keep to the commitment? What about power politics in Africa? What role is division going to play in Nepad? How is the commitment to this plan by the non-African partners going to be enforced, so that it does not stay on paper, but become a commitment with specific plans and action? What is the possibility that President Gaddafi of Libya and President Mugabe of Zimbabwe form their own Nepad? Is the negative perception of Africa being changed and is the attitude of Africa towards its Nepad partners changing?
There is no doubt that the situation in Zimbabwe has a negative impact on the above, and that it stimulated the exodus of Zimbabweans to South Africa, where the Northern Province is the first destination, to the detriment of local South Africans. It is calculated that South Africa already has about four million illegal immigrants, although they are not all from Zimbabwe.
But to be practical, I want to put a real case study to hon members on the impact the situation in Zimbabwe has directly on some South Africans. The question that we asked is: What is South Africa’s policy on protecting the property rights of South African citizens in foreign countries such as Zimbabwe? The official answer to this question by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is that the South African Government will address this through diplomatic channels. In connection with the properties of South African citizens that had been threatened in Zimbabwe, the Minister stated previously that the department, as well as the South African High Commissioner in Harare, took the following steps to protect the property rights of South Africans in Zimbabwe. The Director-General of Foreign Affairs also called on the Zimbabwean High Commissioner in Pretoria during 2001 to protest against such actions. The South African High Commissioner in Harare also consulted with the Zimbabwean government in this regard. But then the Minister, towards the end of March 2002, stated that as a result of the aforementioned interventions the situation was considered to have normalised.
Dit is hierdie laaste gedeelte wat ons bekommerd maak, want die omstandighede het nie genormaliseer nie. Ek het ‘n afskrif van ‘n brief deur ‘n Suid-Afrikaner en dié Suid-Afrikaner het 22 jaar gelede begin belê in Zimbabwe. Die barre grond wat hy in 1953 gekoop het, het hy ontwikkel tot een van die mees gesogte landgoedere in die Zimbabwiese laeveld. In 1970, en veral in 1980 ná onafhanklikheid, het hy, met die samewerking van die Zimbabwiese Reserwebank, miljoene belê. Dié betrokke Suid-Afrikaner het oor dié tydperk nooit enige winste uit Zimbabwe geneem nie en dit eerder weer in die projekte belê. Hy het dus nie Zimbabwe gebruik om hom in Suid- Afrika te verryk nie. Sy motiewe lyk dus bo verdenking.
President Mugabe het in ‘n stadium aangekondig dat verbeterings vergoed sal word, maar nie die grond nie, aangesien dit ``gesteel’’ is. Dié aankondiging is nooit amptelik oorgedra nie en inteendeel, die implemente, besproeiingstoerusting en trekkers van dié betrokke Suid-Afrikaner is deur die oorlogveterane bloot gekonfiskeer sonder enige vergoeding. Daar bestaan geen regsisteem in Zimbabwe waarop die Suid-Afrikaner hom kan beroep nie. Die man is in Zimbabwe binne een jaar finansieel totaal en al geruïneer. Dié persoon het om hulp geskryf aan die President, maar het nog nie ‘n antwoord gekry nie. Ons glo dat dit binnekort sal gebeur. Die Minister van Buitelandse Sake het haar verbind om Suid-Afrikaners se eiendomsreg in die buiteland te beskerm. Aangesien die omstandighede in Zimbabwe dus nie genormaliseer het nie, moet die agb Adjunkminister net vir ons ‘n aanduiding gee oor wat hy en die departement hieromtrent gaan doen en kan doen. Wat is die omvang van Suid-Afrikaners se direkte skade? Die indirekte koste van die verlies van burgerskap en die bedreiging van werkloosheid en dit wat daarmee saamgaan, is baie moeilik kwantifiseerbaar, maar wesenlik. Ons weet hierdie is ‘n probleem wat aangespreek word en definitief aangespreek moet word vir die globale prentjie van die hele Afrika. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[It is this latter part that is giving us cause for concern, because circumstances have not returned to normal. I have a copy of a letter by a South African and this South African had started investing in Zimbabwe 22 years ago. He developed the bare ground that he bought in 1953 into one of the most sought-after estates in the Zimbabwean lowveld. In 1970, and especially after independence in 1980, he invested millions in co-operation with the Zimbabwean Reserve Bank. This particular South African never removed any profits from Zimbabwe, but instead re-invested in the projects. He therefore did not use Zimbabwe to enrich himself in South Africa. His motives therefore appear to be beyond suspicion.
President Mugabe announced at a certain stage that there will be compensation for improvements, but not for land, as that was “stolen”. This announcement was never conveyed officially and, on the contrary, the implements, irrigation equipment and tractors of this specific South African were simply confiscated by the war veterans, without any compensation. There is no judicial system in Zimbabwe to which the South African has recourse. This man has been ruined completely and utterly in Zimbabwe within one year. This person wrote to the President for assistance, but he has not yet received a reply. We believe that this will happen soon.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs committed herself to protecting the property rights of South Africans abroad. Since circumstances in Zimbabwe have not returned to normal, the hon the Deputy Minister should just give us an indication of what he and the department are going to or can do about this. What is the extent of the direct damage suffered by South Africans? The indirect cost of the loss of citizenship and the threat of unemployment and everything associated with it is very difficult to quantify, but it is considerable. We know that this is a problem that must be dealt with and will definitely have to be dealt with for the sake of the global picture of the whole of Africa. [Applause.]]
Mr M J BHENGU: Chairperson, I think I will be allowed to begin by saying that the most important point that needs to be emphasised, particularly when we debate about Zimbabwe, is to say that Zimbabwe is indeed a sovereign and independent state. Having said that, I remember that when I was a student I studied the history of Zimbabwe, how it was colonised and how they actually got their independence. I mean, that background is a very interesting one.
But having said that, I think one must say that there is this situation which has developed right now, a situation of economic, social and political deterioration in Zimbabwe, which is a great cause for concern for quite a number of people. The leadership of this country has actually expressed themselves about that disintegration. I think it is important that we begin to express our support of the people of Zimbabwe, who are actually the final arbiters of their destinies and who will have to find the strength, courage and inspiration to deal with the historic misfortune of their present circumstances.
Reports undoubtedly do indicate that there is that kind of disintegration of the rule of law and there is actually, according to the reports, a systematic violation of fundamental human rights and liberties, and, of course, of proper governance. And if we say that we are part of Zimbabwe and it is part of us, we do need, in the spirit of Nepad, to help Zimbabwe not to go down the drain, as somebody put it.
Therefore, I think we do need to say ``brothers, do not do this’’, but we certainly cannot impose sanctions on Zimbabwe. We actually need to plead with the democratic countries of the world not to impose economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. We have experience, as the people of this country, of how painful it is to see people who are hungry. Hunger is the most terrible thing a human being could actually experience.
I am saying that, within the spirit of Nepad once again, we need to be
strong enough to say to our neighbours do not do this'', as our President
has actually said.Do not do this, but please do that, because if you do
this it will affect us.’’ We should do that throughout the entire
continent. Any country on the entire continent should actually be told that
they should not do certain things but should do others, so that the dream
we have, the dream of the African Renaissance, which is encapsulated so
beautifully in Nepad, is actually realised. Otherwise, it cannot be
realised.
Therefore, I am trying to say that we believe that the ongoing talks right now between Zanu-PF and the MDC will actually bear fruit, and those people will begin to realise the beauty of their country within the African continent. [Applause.]
Mr J O TLHAGALE: Chairperson and hon members, my task in terms of the subject of discussion is not about whether the elections were fair or not, nor whether I am comfortable with the party that won the elections or not. My task is to deal with the effects of the result of that election on the Nepad initiative, Zimbabwe itself and our northern provinces. However, I am hampered from saying what I could say by time limitations.
The greatest impact of this election was expected to be on the Nepad initiative. Western countries - the United Kingdom, the United States, Scandinavian countries, Australia and New Zealand in particular - had advocated a hard-line approach against Zimbabwe. To various degrees, they have imposed different types of sanctions on Zimbabwe. Some of those sanctions are that senior government and political leaders would be denied entry into those respective countries of the West. It is said that they would also freeze any assets or bank accounts of those leaders in their countries. As yet, no indication of any measure of success has been reported. However, the suspension of Zimbabwe from membership of the Commonwealth seems to have satisfied the Western countries for now and obviated any potential danger to the Nepad initiative which is currently on course and enjoying their full support.
Zimbabwe’s difficulties, as I see them, have been long in the making and will take long to solve. Its economy and agricultural potential are in tatters. It has changed from being a bread basket to being a begging bowl of Southern Africa. Regardless of who won the elections, the problems remain unchallenged. The only way to help that country is through a concerted effort of the neighbouring SADC countries, accompanied by agricultural and economic experts to address its problems.
Prior to Zimbabwe’s elections, there was much speculation amongst the media that there would be chaos in that country if the opposition parties did not win, with the result that the northern provinces of South Africa would be flooded with millions of refugees. However, the border officials at Beit Bridge reported that they only received two persons seeking political asylum and that a refugee centre set up by the Police Service, Home Affairs and SANDF in that neighbourhood did not get any refugees to accommodate. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Thank you, hon member. Your time has expired. You must ask for more time from the Chief Whip, hon member.
I call the hon member B J Tolo. [Interjections.] It is Tolo who is next according to my programme. I see Mr Windvoël, whose name is not on the list I have. Mr V V Z WINDVOëL: Chairperson, I want to ask whether it is in order that while the House is in session a party holds a caucus in the corner of the Chamber and leaves one member in the cold here. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Thank you. Mr Tolo, can you address the House. [Laughter.]
Mr B J TOLO: Chairperson, thank you for affording me the opportunity to
participate here in this debate. Before I actually start on my speech, I
would like to join those who conveyed condolences to the late Comrade Steve
Tshwete’s family. I will remember him for an episode that he told me about
in 1985 when he was the army commissar. This episode happened when he was
on the island. He said that there was an Afrikaner warder who had said to
him: Ek gee nie om nie. Julle kan maar daardie Kaapstad vat. Julle kan
maar Johannesburg vat - enige dorp.'' [I don’t care. You can have old
Cape Town. You can have Johannesburg - any town.’’] That Afrikaner warder
was from Stellenbosch. And he said: Maar in Stellenbosch, daar gaan julle
k...k.'' [But in Stellenbosch, that’s where you are going to sh…t’’]
[Laughter.] So I remember him for that. He was actually defending
Stellenbosch and not any other part of the country.
The elections in Zimbabwe have come and gone. It is of no use for us to sit here and lament about those elections or what happened on the day of the elections. To repeat the truisms about what happened there is not going to put food on the table of the Zimbabwean people. What is important for us is what we as South Africans and, indeed, part of the community of nations, can and must do to help the Zimbabwean people to come out of the quagmire in which they are today. It is exactly in that spirit that we, as public representatives who determine the opinions of the people out there, should approach the post-election period in Zimbabwe. We are under no illusions about the enormity of the task at hand and the emotions involved.
What is certain is that nobody is denying the fact that the elections were permeated by the kinds of problems and tension that one would expect of what was a highly charged and an emotional experience for all Zimbabweans. We would think that it was natural. Whipping up emotions with inflammatory statements for political mileage and irresponsible media coverage is not going to contribute to alleviating the dire plight of the Zimbabwean people. Let us not forget, as neighbours and fellow Africans, the umbilical cord of colonialism, oppression and discrimination that binds us to the Zimbabwean people. We are therefore convinced that the complexities of Zimbabwe’s political, economic and social turmoil will only be resolved through African wisdom and solutions and not recrimination and acrimony.
We, as the ruling party, believe that in the endeavour to search for answers for the Zimbabwean question, our guidance should come from the Zimbabwean people themselves as nobody else can solve their problems. We can only help, but we cannot solve their problems. Let us remember that they are a people scarred by a low-intensity civil war for almost two years, in the main due to the vexing land question which up to this day has not been solved. We must also bear in mind that the hands of the government of that country were bound by the Lancaster House agreement, and that is why they could not settle their problem as soon as many would have liked. They should be given all the support that they need to resolve their problems.
Moreover, the Zimbabwean economy has in this period taken a severe pounding and confidence both among its citizenry and foreign investors needs to be restored as a matter of urgency. Neither the West, nor we can or will be able to write the script for them. We have no doubt that any solution, as we indicated before, will come from them. Solutions, therefore, must be embraced by the people of Zimbabwe if they are to succeed.
It is for this reason that we, as the majority party, strongly advocate that the ruling Zanu-PF and the MDC co-operate and chart the destiny of all Zimbabweans together. We remain convinced that together as a people they can find solutions to the acute food shortage, help resolve the land question and put that country on the road to economic recovery and social reconstruction. Maybe, as our President suggested, they should look seriously at the possibility of a government of national unity. A closer look at the Zimbabwean economy leaves us in no doubt that this is indeed the only way for President Robert Mugabe and the opposition to go.
Reconciliation between the main political parties is absolutely essential if we are to avoid a mass exodus of starving Zimbabweans coming to our shores, and not only to our shores, but to the region as a whole. Moreover, it is the only instrument that will ensure political and socioeconomic stability and restore the rule of law and confidence of Zimbabwean people in their government.
It is against this background that we, as South Africans, are supporting the views and the position of our Government. Our track record on interacting with Zanu-PF and the MDC, as well as with the international community, from as early as 1998 or 2000, about the creation of conditions that are conducive to democratic elections bears testimony to our commitment to that country.
The other day I read an article in a newspaper in which President Chissano of Mozambique told our President, Thabo Mbeki, that 10 years ago the ruling party, Frelimo, in Mozambique signed a peace accord with their, up to then arch rival, Renamo. He was relating to President Mbeki how that accord has brought peace and stability to Mozambique. That country today is a hive of economic activity, as world capital and indeed even South African capital flows into that country.
We have no doubt, therefore, in our minds that if Zimbabwe can emulate this good example of co-operation between people with different political persuasions and who do not see each other, or one another, as enemies but as political opponents who can work together for the sake of their entire country or their people, their war against poverty, backwardness and all other negative tendencies shall have been halfway won in that country.
As the ANC we support unreservedly the efforts of our President, Thabo Mbeki, and the Nigerian President, Obasanjo, in constructive engagement in Zimbabwe. It is only the doubting Thomases who will have reservations about this engagement. [Interjections.] This will inevitably bear fruit in our country.
In conclusion, I just want to respond a little to some of the insinuations made by the members of the …. [Interjections] … oh, DP. I thought it was the Democratic Alliance. [Interjections.] Okay, it is the DP. I really wonder when the DP became activists of human rights. [Interjections.] I really wonder when they started becoming activists of human rights. We will remember that their leader today, Tony Leon, was among those people who maimed our people in this country; killed them. It was in this Parliament, even during the times when we were struggling for human rights. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! [Interjections.] Hon members, I have said I need order in the House, and I do not think my patience is endless. Can we hear a point of order?
Ms C S BOTHA: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is it acceptable for a member to accuse a member of this Parliament, the leader of the DA, of having been guilty of murder? [Interjections.] And if I may ask, in terms of a response from the floor, is it acceptable for a member from the floor to support the suggestion that our leader has been guilty of murder? I object most vociferously.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! Mrs Mahlangu, I have said I will send you out. Can you go out now. Hon Tolo, did you say that the leader of the DA has killed people, because if you did so you need to withdraw those words?
Mr B J TOLO: Chairperson, I said that he served in an army that killed and maimed our people. THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): As there is a dispute, we need to check the exact wording and then we will give a ruling. Continue, hon member.
Mr B J TOLO: Chairperson, I just want to say that it is not correct for the DA to claim to be human rights activists. We are the ones who can rightfully claim to be human rights activists. We have actually worked in such a way that we deserve that title, and not the DA or the DP. And we have liberated them, of course.
There is an old saying, in conclusion, that goes: Once your enemy praises you, you must pause to think what serious mistake you have committed. But once your enemy taunts you and attacks you left, right and centre, you must know that you are on the correct path. [Interjections.] As the ANC, we are on the correct path as long as we are being attacked by the DA and the DP.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I take this opportunity to welcome the hon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and call upon him to address this House. [Interjections.] Oh sorry, Ms Botha, your response. Sorry about that.
Ms C S BOTHA: Chairperson, first of all I would like to say, on the lighter side of things, that I would have objected to the hon Tolo’s use of what I considered unparliamentary language in what he said right in the beginning, if it was not that I thought he said exactly what the other people had said in this debate.
I want to respond to several issues in the debate. Unfortunately the hon member Mahlangu is now absent, but I would like to respond to her arrogance in imputing the right of whites in this country to make a value judgment on Zimbabwe. I think it is time that we realised that as whites we can be as moral, as immoral, as supportive of human rights ….
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Hon member, please take your seat. Chief Whip, why are you rising?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order. Is it correct for a member to respond to remarks made by members from the floor, rather than to the person who is participating in the debate? I can understand the relevance of responding to a person who is participating in the debate, but a remark made by a spokesperson does not form an integral part of the debate. I would imagine that under those circumstances the response is not relevant.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Mr Chief Whip, if it is something said within the House - if this issue was said and raised within the House - there is no reason why somebody cannot react to it. That is why we can call a member out of order, that is, somebody who says something and he or she was not one of the speakers. That person can be called out of order. So, accordingly, I hold that she is in order. Mr V V Z WINDVOëL: Mr President, L: Chairperson, will the member take a question, if she is confident of what she is debating?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Hon member, are you prepared to take a question?
Ms C S BOTHA: Chairperson, I am perfectly confident, but I am not interested in answering the question at this moment. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Thank you. Can you continue, hon member.
Ms C S BOTHA: I appreciate your ruling, Chairperson, because I think it is time we started looking at this country, at all the people who are living here and who intend living here, and perhaps even moving to Zimbabwe, if we so feel, and becoming citizens there. There is not a country in Africa, to my understanding, where I should not be welcomed as a human being, and it is about time that we all understood that race is something that we should be putting in the past. [Interjections.]
It should not constantly be thrown in my face that I cannot make a value judgment on anything in this country, on what Mugabe does, on what a black man does to another black man and to black men and women in Zimbabwe. I certainly have opinions on those things; the DA has opinions on those things. White people, coloured people and black people have varying opinions on those things and I am totally entitled to voice them.
It is a kind of arrogance that I am constantly … [Interjections.] I am part of this House, I am part of this Parliament and I am part of this debate. And I may have an interest in anything in this country, in any subject, and I will voice my opinion on them, and I will voice my opinion on Zimbabwe as well. [Interjections.] It is time that hon members realise that our contribution … and they ask for money from the West all the time, on whom they rely for support for Nepad, from people who have opinions and whom hon members should start listening to. I have the right to do so, and I will insist, and I will continue to do so.
I am as much a citizen of this country as those hon members are. I fought for their right to be … [Interjections] Yes, I – me … [Interjections.] … as I stand here. Therefore I will continue, as I fought for those hon members’ right to be sitting in this House today. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order, hon members! Order! I do not want to say you behave like children, but on a serious note, you do behave like children, because you want to hear what you want to hear. Can you not allow somebody to express his or her opinion, whether you like it or not?
I mean, it is our democratic right to express our opinion and to state our facts as we deem fit, so that the Minister will have an opportunity to listen and to respond to those questions, hon members.
Ms C S BOTHA: Chairperson, on a point of history, they are asking: When did we become activists of human rights? I wonder how quickly they have forgotten, or have they ever known, about people who stood up here alone. For 13 years, as a matter of fact, Ms Suzman stood here fighting for human rights, for which she is still to this day recognised throughout the world. That is just a tiny little fact.
Then, if I may say so, I wonder what those hon members’ revered leader, Oliver Tambo, a man who slept in my house, would have thought today if he heard those members and the way they continue to talk about whites in this country. I leave that thought with those members. [Interjections.]
I want to respond to the issue of Zimbabwe as a sovereign independent state. It is here where we are often confronted with problems when we try to defend the indefensible by saying it occurs in sovereign independent states. I want to point out to the hon members something they may not be aware of, which their own President is calling for, that the collective approach and sanctions are precisely what Nepad envisages.
Nepad binds an entire continent. It speaks not of some African standard of human rights, but gives in article 79 a fundamental and international commitment. With Nepad, Africa undertakes to represent the global standards of democracy whose core components include political pluralism, allowing fair, open, free …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Order! I see an hon member raising a hand. What is wrong?
Ms J L KGOALI: Chairperson, I just wanted to find out from you whether it is parliamentary for the hon member addressing the House and the President of this country to say ``your President’’. Is he not her President?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): Well, I think that is
how she wants to express herself. Continue and conclude, hon member.
Ms C S BOTHA: I will certainly respond to that particular point as well. I
would like to call President Mbeki our President''. I would like him to
speak ofour people’’. I too often see that he also makes the distinction
between us'' andthem’’. When we are able, as South African citizens in
this country, to speak of ``us’’, our country and our right to speak about
Zimbabwe, then, perhaps, we will have progressed. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairperson, members of the House, let me once again thank you for giving us an opportunity to discuss with you yet another issue of profound importance not only to South Africa, but to the region and, indeed, the continent as a whole, and I refer to the issue of Zimbabwe.
I think this debate is very timely, because it takes place in the context of a process of rapid globalisation with all its challenges and dangers. In this context some colleagues have said that the African Renaissance is an important challenge for all of us and, within that framework is Nepad. Therefore it is quite important that we begin to discuss issues in a way that helps us to move forward, and to not get lost in slogans and verbage that do not have much meaning. Indeed, let me say that whatever else Ms Botha has said, we have to start on the premise that Zimbabwe is not the tenth province of South Africa. Whatever we can do to influence Zimbabwe has to be done in the context of relations from country to country.
I sometimes get the impression that some of our colleagues in Parliament, especially from the opposition, really believe that, given their own understanding of the situation in Zimbabwe - and I do not know who they will choose next - we will be able to send in the troops and impose the form of government that they think should be imposed.
I think that is a danger that we must guard against, because it reflects a very dangerous tendency that emerges in some of our parliamentary political parties. I am happy that most of the people who spoke expressed concerns, but were positive by trying to ask what we should do to help solve the situation.
I start by saying that if we do not understand that the development and peace and stability of Zimbabwe are fundamentally important to the future of South Africa and therefore demand that we take action that does not endanger the peace and stability in Zimbabwe, we will be making a profound mistake.
Indeed, we cannot therefore say that peace and stability cannot take into account the land issue. I see I was a bit late, but I hear that Ms Botha has said the land issue is not the problem. The land issue is a fundamental problem, and that includes South Africa. This is a question of how one deals with the land issue in a way that takes on board the Constitution, the rule of law and prevents violence.
But in no way can we be so ignorant as to say that the land issue is not an important issue; it is a major issue. We also have to accept that there is fundamental polarisation that has taken place in Zimbabwe over the past few years. Any action that we as South Africa take, in concert with our region and the international community, must be able to allow us to help to deal with the polarisation that is now deeply rooted in the Zimbabwean situation, reflected by and large by a rural-urban divide.
The economic situation in Zimbabwe was there prior to the elections. This Government and, indeed, the private sector in this country in partnership with others, were attempting to deal with the economic crisis in Zimbabwe long before the elections came into play. And, indeed, I think we must all agree that whatever action we take must prevent the economy from collapsing further, and that we must take Zimbabwe out of this dangerous situation of an economic collapse to one in which the economy begins to grow again and in which the stability of the country as a whole can be sustained. Because if Zimbabwe collapses, it will have a profound effect, as I have said, on all of us.
This is not an imaginary spectre of millions of Zimbabweans coming across the border. Indeed, I am glad my colleague from the Northern Province indicated that the statistics do not give one any indication that in the last few months thousands of these black hordes have been coming across our borders. This is a fear that members keep putting across. It is an illogical attempt to deal with serious matters. I think we must get rid of arguments like that.
Secondly, discussion of such crucial issues should take place on an informed basis. We cannot just read a few newspaper articles and perhaps speak to one businessman here and one businessman there, who is then purported to have told my colleague from the ACDP and my colleague from the DP that Zimbabwe is having a profound effect on Nepad and on South Africa generally. Why did they not say something to the effect that the South African economy is now regarded as the best economy in all emerging markets, and the recovery of our rand in the last few months makes it the best of all emerging currencies in the world? That proves the fact that the Zimbabwe spectre that people have been putting forward is a false one. Thirdly, let me say that we all welcome concerns expressed about developments in other countries, but we must not do this selectively, and we must do it with genuine concern about what we are talking about. We must avoid the emotional outbursts that have taken place and continue to take place on the Zimbabwean issue.
I hear what Ms Botha said, that we are all South Africans and we must deracialise politics. Well, that is a long cry coming to us in the ANC. The ANC’s whole existence has been based on the deracialisation of politics. But sometimes members of the opposition, in talking of deracialisation, use exactly the race argument to frighten our minorities, to put the fear of God into them about black rule, etc. Unfortunately even if that is not one’s conscious understanding, how one acts does give substance to that sort of argument.
The very fact that today Ms Botha raised the spectre of an attack against the Indians is a reflection of how she tackles politics of a fundamental nature on a racist basis. In fact, I have been at pains to explain that with regard to this story about war veterans attacking the Indians, threatening the Indians, the Zimbabwean government has quite categorically stated that those comments were not made on behalf of the war veterans or the Zimbabwean government. To bring it in is a simple election ploy, once again to give the Indian minorities the fear that it was the whites yesterday, tomorrow it will be Indians, and the day after the coloureds. That, in the nonracial South Africa that we are trying to build, is very dangerous and not acceptable.
I think we need to come to grips with this because what Ms Botha and her party are doing, is really to racialise politics when many parties in South Africa, the ANC included, are trying to deracialise politics and to deal with the issues at hand, rather than to keep introducing the racial spectre, as she does.
Let me also say that these parties continually express concerns and become agents of doom and gloom. Sometimes, the ACDP does it, followed by the DA; sometimes the DA does it, followed by the ACDP. But I have yet to see one concrete suggestion from them to say how we as South Africa, as Africans, can help the Zimbabwean people to come out of the crisis they are having at the moment. If they do that, it will be to their credit and show that they are not just playing party politics, but are trying to stabilise one country in the context of the whole region of Southern Africa and Africa. I think they will be more respected than they are at the moment.
Regarding the attack on quiet diplomacy by my colleague who used to be our ambassador in London, nobody has told us what the alternative to quiet diplomacy should be. All the threats and noise made by various individuals in South Africa and some governments outside did not in the end prevent the Zimbabweans, despite the pre-election problems, from expressing their will on who they wanted to elect as their president.
Those parties do not give an alternative to quiet diplomacy. Again it raises the question of what they want us to do. Do they want us to impose sanctions. The MDC says they do not want sanctions. Do those parties want us to send our troops in? That is a ridiculous notion. What do they want us to do rather than trying, in our interaction, to ensure that we help to stabilise the political and economic situation. Quiet diplomacy does not mean that one does not raise critically what one sees as problems in a country.
I do not know which businessmen the DP and ACDP meet, but we meet businessmen all the time. The President sees more businessmen than I think they have breakfasts. Nevertheless, perhaps they see businesspeople who come from a particular angle. With the right-wing trend that is going on in Europe and North America, maybe that is the sort of businesspeople they see, and therefore they reflect that sort of understanding of issues. We are concerned about what has been going on. We are concerned about working with the Zimbabweans to help them to come out of the serious economic and political crisis.
Kent Durr says it is ridiculous for us to expect that the MDC and Zanu-PF will talk. Well, maybe where he comes from, his party can say a lot of things because they make no real impact. As a Government we have a responsibility to try to ensure that the two parties do get together to deal with the problem that they face.
Let me quote what the Commonwealth has said. [Interjections.] One cannot negotiate with Zanu-PF without Mugabe. Who gives those members the right to choose the leaders for Zanu-PF? It is not their right, it is the right of the people of Zimbabwe. They should forget that suggestion.
The Commonwealth statement on Zimbabwe says, and I quote:
The committee expresses determination to promote reconciliation in Zimbabwe between the main political parties. To this end the committee strongly supported the initiatives of the president of Nigeria and the president of South Africa in encouraging a climate of reconciliation between the two main political parties in Zimbabwe.
It goes on to say that they considered it essential to address the issues of food shortages - everything we have been talking about - economic recovery, the restoration of political stability, the rule of law and conducting of future elections.
Unfortunately, what my colleagues in the DA and the ACDP say is correct, it is not new, but every time they try to say something that is more creative it is absolutely false and not right. This is the sad thing we have with the people.
The Commonwealth statement further called on us to work together to deal with the land issue through the UNDP and to use our initiative to get the two parties together. If members do not know, the Secretary-General of the ANC and Prof Adedeji of Nigeria have been mandated on behalf of the Commonwealth to bring the two parties together. This is not an easy task, given the polarisation that has taken place in Zimbabwe. But now an agenda has been agreed, and they are expected to start meeting in a few days.
Let me give members an example of what happens when we work with false information and make a big issue out of it. This whole story of an MDC woman being decapitated was in our newspapers for days. Morgan Tsvangirai threatened to walk out of the discussions because he said this had happened. What happened? We asked: ``Where is this corpse?’’ We kept being told about this decapitated woman, so we said there must be a corpse. Where is the corpse? Now they have discovered there is no corpse, that this has been a false report.
I must say, honestly, for me this is a worrying factor. I am not saying there has been no violence, from both sides, by the way. Maybe there was relatively more by one side or the other, but there has been violence. But we all worked on this corpse, and now we cannot find the corpse. How many other stories are there like this? Unfortunately some of our people battle without there been any substance to it. This is not helping us to get the two parties to forget incidents here and there, and to deal with the issue.
Let me remind members: In this country, before the first elections, we had more deaths than at any other time in the history of apartheid South Africa. We should therefore not be holier than the Pope. It is not that we condone the violence, but because there is some element of violence we cannot now say that because of that the elections were not free, etc. We had more deaths in this country than anywhere in Zimbabwe, more than at any other time in the history of apartheid.
Zimbabwe is fundamental to our future, but we will never accept anybody, in the words of Ms Botha, telling us that they will use Zimbabwe as a litmus test whether to support or not support Nepad. We have quite categorically stated that one supports Nepad on the basis of one’s acceptance of the programme.
Today it is Zimbabwe and tomorrow it will be another country. We cannot accept those sorts of conditions. We will accept, as mutual friends and partners, support from every country that thinks that this is a plan for mutual benefit. No longer can we as African countries be subject to a determination of what will happen on the basis of somebody’s understanding of what they think is a correct way forward. We will form equal partnerships and we will deal with them on an equal basis and I think on that we have no question or doubts.
Those who do not want to support Nepad must not support it. Nepad, in the end, is a partnership with the private sector, and both those parties should know that the private sector goes where profit is made. If Nepad is a good programme they will go in there as partners. I have no doubts about that element of it. The businessmen that hon member talks to probably do not even invest in Africa and do not even know where Africa is. The ones we talked to have a fundamental vested interest in Africa because it is mutually beneficial for them.
Now let me end by saying this. We have major challenges. We must do everything possible to bring about national unity in Zimbabwe, because, if the Zimbabweans from all sides do not accept that the future of the country is much greater than their own individual interest and therefore the country makes a decisive impact on the future of everyone, we will be in serious difficulties. So national unity based on reconciliation has to remain our objective.
It is not easy, of course. If anything was easy, why would we be in Government? We would have left it to those hon members. It is because government is difficult that we are in Government. Therefore I am not saying that it is an easy task, but it is a task we need to take on.
Let me deal with the economic recovery. Incidentally, I do not know which supporters the hon member is talking about. We are talking to the agricultural unions, both black and white, to Business South Africa, to members of the business sector in South Africa who have interests in Zimbabwe and those who do not have interests, to trade unionists and to religious leaders to see how we can all work together to achieve peace and stability and then economic recovery.
The food crisis was mentioned. It is only Zimbabwe that is going through a food crisis. The drought issue has brought about a serious disaster in Malawi, parts of Mozambique, and parts of Zimbabwe. That does not mean that we do not have to look at certain economic policies that certain countries have undertaken to see how, together, we can get them to change certain directions in order to make and use better the possibilities that arise in their countries. Zimbabwe must not continue to be an issue that we use for political purposes.
I am totally convinced in my mind - I hope hon members can prove otherwise
- that sometimes Zimbabwe has selectively been taken up as an issue because of the kith-and-kin phemomenon, but also, more importantly, because there is unconscious fear in people’s minds that if it is happening in Zimbabwe today it is going to happen in South Africa tomorrow. That is why this issue of Zimbabwe has become so emotional and so heated amongst elements of the opposition.
My own argument would be that it is not so that if it happens in one country it can happen in another country. If we do not want it to happen in South Africa, we must work together to create a genuinely nonracial South Africa; where we better the lives of all our people and not just a few. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M L Mushwana): I thank the hon the Minister for agreeing to participate in this important debate. Obviously when Zimbabwe or Palestine is being talked about, that generates a lot of heat. I thank hon members for a lively debate.
Debate concluded.
The Council adjourned at 16:56. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
THURSDAY, 28 MARCH 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
Dr S C Cwele has been appointed as chairperson of the Joint Standing
Committee on Intelligence with effect from 22 March 2002.
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
The vacancy which occurred in the representation of the Province of the
Western Cape has been filled with effect from 15 March 2002 by the
appointment of Mr F Adams. Mr Adams was sworn in as a permanent
delegate to the National Council of Provinces on 27 March 2002.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission for 2000-2001 [RP 16-2002].
(2) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
South African Diamond Board for 2000-2001 [RP 29-2002].
- The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:
(1) The Agreement on Science and Technological Co-operation between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, tabled in terms of section
231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(2) The Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on Co-operation in the
Field of Arts and Culture, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of
the Constitution, 1996.
- The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Report of the Judicial Service Commission for 2000-2001.
(2) Report and Financial Statements of the Legal Aid Board for 2000-
2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2000-2001. 4. The Minister of Communications:
Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Department of
Communications for 1999-2000.
- The Minister of Labour:
Strategic Plan of the Department of Labour for 2002-2005.
FRIDAY, 5 APRIL 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Assent by the President of the Republic in respect of the
following Bills:
(a) Social Grants Appropriation Bill [B 9 - 2002] - Act No 2
of 2002 (assented to and signed by President on 27 March
2002);
(b) Burundi Protection Support Appropriation Bill [B 10 -
2002] - Act No 3 of 2002 (assented to and signed by
President on 27 March 2002);
(c) Unemployment Insurance Contributions Bill [B 85 - 2001] -
Act No 4 of 2002 (assented to and signed by President on
27 March 2002); and
(d) Division of Revenue Bill [B 5D - 2002] - Act No 5 of 2002
(assented to and signed by President on 27 March 2002).
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Minister for Provincial and Local Government on 21 February
2002 submitted a draft of the Disaster Management Bill, 2002, as
well as the memorandum explaining the objects of the proposed
legislation, to the Speaker and the Chairperson in terms of Joint
Rule 159. The draft has been referred to the Portfolio Committee
on Provincial and Local Government and the Select Committee on
Local Government and Administration by the Speaker and the
Chairperson, respectively, in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).
(2) The Minister of Finance on 15 March 2002 submitted a draft of
the Collective Investment Schemes Control Bill, 2002, as well as
the memorandum explaining the objects of the proposed legislation,
to the Speaker and the Chairperson in terms of Joint Rule 159. The
draft has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance and
the Select Committee on Finance by the Speaker and the
Chairperson, respectively, in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).
(3) The Minister of Health on 15 March 2002 submitted drafts of the
Health Donations Fund Repeal Bill, 2002, and the Occupational
Diseases in Mines and Works Amendment Bill, 2002, as well as the
memoranda explaining the objects of the proposed legislation, to
the Speaker and the Chairperson in terms of Joint Rule 159. The
drafts have been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Health and
the Select Committee on Social Services by the Speaker and the
Chairperson, respectively, in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
relevant committees as mentioned below:
(1) The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Economic and Foreign Affairs:
Strategic Plan for the Department of Foreign Affairs for 2002-
2005.
(2) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs:
(a) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of the State of Qatar concerning Co-
operation in the Military Field, tabled in terms of section
231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the
Republic of South Africa and the Government of the People's
Republic of China concerning Defence Co-operation, tabled in
terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(c) Arrangement between the Department of Defence of the
Republic of South Africa and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Netherlands, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(d) Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the
Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of
Burundi concerning the South African Mission in Support of the
Implementation of the Arusha Peace and Reconciliation
Agreement for Burundi, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of
the Constitution, 1996.
(e) Specific Arrangement between the Government of the
Republic of South Africa and the Kingdom of Belgium on The
Funding of the South African Protection Support Detachment in
Support of the Implementation of the Arusha Peace and
Reconciliation Agreement for Burundi, tabled in terms of
section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(f) Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the
Republic of South Africa and the United Nations contributing
Resources to the "Mission de l'Organisation des Nations Unies
au Congo" (MONUC), tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(g) Documents in terms of section 9(1) of the Promotion of
National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 1995, regarding the
Remuneration, Allowances and other employment Benefits of the
Staff of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry: (1) Government Notice No R.652 published in Government Gazette No 22472 dated 20 July 2001, Norms and Standards in respect of Tariffs for Water Services, made in terms of section 10(1) of the Water Services Act, 1997 (Act No 108 of 1997).
(2) General Notice No 1775 published in Government Gazette No 22527
dated 1 August 2001, Draft Regulations under the National Veld and
Forest Fire Act, 1998 (Act No 101 of 1998).
(3) Government Notice No 757 published in Government Gazette No
22577 dated 24 August 2001, Determining of an Interest Rate, made
in terms of section 59(3)(a) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act
No 36 of 1998).
(4) Government Notice No 850 published in Government Gazette No
22652 dated 7 September 2001, Invitation to submit written
comments on Proposed Directions with regard to the Control and
Management of General Communal and General Small Waste Disposal
sites, made in terms of section 20(5) of the Environment
Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No 73 of 1989).
(5) Government Notice No 1096 published in Government Gazette No
22801 dated 9 November 2001, Determining of an Interest Rate, made
in terms of section 59(3)(a) of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act
No 36 of 1998).
(6) Government Notice No 1173 published in Government Gazette No
22830 dated 13 November 2001, Regarding the Prohibition on the
making of Fires in the Open Air: Western Cape, made in terms of
the Forest Act, 1984 (Act No 122 of 1984).
(7) Government Notice No 1174 published in Government Gazette No
22830 dated 13 November 2001, Regarding the Prohibition on the
making of Fires in the Open Air: Districts of Clanwilliam,
Piketberg, Ceres, Tulbagh, Worcester, Caledon, Paarl,
Stellenbosch, Strand and Somerset West, made in terms of the
Forest Act, 1984 (Act No 122 of 1984).
(8) Government Notice No 1175 published in Government Gazette No
22830 dated 13 November 2001, Regarding the Prohibition on the
making of Fires in the Open Air: Districts of Swellendam and
Montagu, made in terms of the Forest Act, 1984 (Act No 122 of
1984).
(9) Government Notice No 1201 published in Government Gazette No
22839 dated 23 November 2001, Regarding the Establishment of the
Thabina Irrigation Scheme Water User Association, District of
Mopani in the Northern Province, Water Management Area Number 2,
made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(10) Government Notice No 1306 published in Government Gazette No
22904 dated 14 December 2001, Regarding the Transformation of the
Kalahari West Water Board, Division of Gordonia, Province of the
Northern Cape, into the Kalahari West Water User Association,
Water Management Area Number 14, Province of the Northern Cape,
made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(11) Government Notice No 1307 published in Government Gazette No
22904 dated 14 December 2001, Regarding the Transformation of the
Kalahari East Water Board, Division of Postmasburg and Kuruman,
Province of the Northern Cape, into the Kalahari East Water User
Association, Water Management Area Number 10, Province of the
Northern Cape, made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act
No 36 of 1998).
(12) Government Notice No 1308 published in Government Gazette No
22904 dated 14 December 2001, Regarding the Transformation of the
Kat River Irrigation Board, Division of Stockenstroom, Victoria
East and Fort Beaufort, Province of the Eastern Cape, into the Kat
River Valley Water User Association, Water Management Area Number
15, Province of the Eastern Cape, made in terms of the National
Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(13) Government Notice No 1309 published in Government Gazette No
22904 dated 14 December 2001, Regarding the Transformation of the
Great Letaba Major Irrigation Board, Districts of Letaba and
Pietersburg, Northern Province, into the Letaba Water User
Association, Water Management Area Number 2, Northern Province,
made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(14) Government Notice No 1357 published in Government Gazette No
22929 dated 14 December 2001, Assessing DWAF's compliance with the
NEMA Principles, made in terms of the National Environmental
Management Act, 1998 (Act No 107 of 1998).
(15) Government Notice No 42 published in Government Gazette No 23037
dated 25 January 2002, Regarding the Transformation of the Blyde
River Irrigation Board, Magisterial District of Phalaborwa,
Northern Province, into the Lower Blyde River Water User
Association, Water Management Area Number 4, Northern Province,
made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(16) Government Notice No 89 published in Government Gazette No 23053
dated 1 February 2002, Regarding the Establishment of the Lebalelo
Water User Association, Districts of Letaba and Lydenburg, in the
Northern and Mpumalanga Provinces, Water Management Area Number 4,
made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(17) Government Notice No 91 published in Government Gazette No 23053
dated 1 February 2002, Directions with regard to the Control and
Management of General Communal and General Small Waste Disposal
Sites, made in terms of section 20(5)(b) of the Environment
Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No 73 of 1989).
- The Minister of Transport:
(1) Report and Financial Statements of the Road Accident Fund for
2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor General on the
Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 31-2002].
(2) Strategic Plan of the Department of Transport for 2002-2003.
- The Minister of Sport and Recreation:
Strategic Plan of the Department of Sport and Recreation for 2002-2004.
- The Minister of Correctional Services:
Strategic Plan of the Department of Correctional Services for 2002-
2005.
MONDAY, 15 APRIL 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
The following changes have been made to the membership of Joint
Committees, viz:
Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Women:
Appointed: Mathibela, N F; Mbuyazi, L R (Alt); Ngubane, H (Alt);
Roopnarain, U.
Improvement of Quality of Life and Status of Children, Youth and
Disabled Persons:
Appointed: Dhlamini, B W (Alt); Mbuyazi, L R.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
(1) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa
and the Government of the Republic of the Seychelles for the
Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion
with respect to Taxes on Income, tabled in terms of section 231(2)
of the Constitution, 1996.
(2) Explanatory Memorandum on the Double Taxation Agreement between
the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of the Seychelles.
- The Minister of Transport:
(1) Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Germany,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(2) Bilateral Air Services Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Federal
Republic of Brazil, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
- The Minister of Safety and Security:
Strategic Plan of the Independent Complaints Directorate for 2002-2005
[RP 51-2002].
- The Minister of Communications:
Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Department of
Communications for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Labour:
Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Construction Education
and Training Authority for 2000-2001, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 19-2002].
FRIDAY, 19 APRIL 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development on 7
March 2002 submitted drafts of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa Amendment Bill, 2002, and the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa Second Amendment Bill, 2002, as well as
the memorandums explaining the objects of the proposed
legislation, to the Speaker and the Chairperson in terms of Joint
Rule 159. The drafts have been referred to the Portfolio Committee
on Justice and Constitutional Development and the Select Committee
on Security and Constitutional Affairs by the Speaker and the
Chairperson, respectively, in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).
(2) The Minister of Minerals and Energy on 11 April 2002 submitted a
draft of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Bill,
2002, as well as the memorandum explaining the objects of the
proposed legislation, to the Speaker and the Chairperson in terms
of Joint Rule 159. The draft has been referred to the Portfolio
Committee on Minerals and Energy and the Select Committee on
Economic and Foreign Affairs by the Speaker and the Chairperson,
respectively, in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).
(3) The following Bill was introduced by the Minister for Justice
and Constitutional Development in the National Assembly on 18
April 2002 and referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for
classification in terms of Joint Rule 160:
(i) Insolvency Amendment Bill [B 14 - 2002] (National Assembly
- sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior notice of its
introduction published in Government Gazette No 23231 of 15
March 2002.]
The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice
and Constitutional Development 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.
(4) The following Bill was introduced by the Minister of Minerals
and Energy in the National Assembly on 19 April 2002 and referred
to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms
of Joint Rule 160:
(i) Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Bill [B 15 -
2002] (National Assembly - sec 75) [Explanatory summary of
Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in
Government Gazette No 23316 of 12 April 2002.]
The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Minerals
and Energy 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.
(5) The following Bills were introduced by the Minister for Justice
and Constitutional Development in the National Assembly on 19
April 2002 and referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for
classification in terms of Joint Rule 160:
(i) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment
Bill [B 16 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 74) [Bill and
prior notice of its introduction published in Government
Gazette No 23218 of 11 March 2002.]
(ii)Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Second Amendment
Bill [B 17 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 74) [Bill and
prior notice of its introduction published in Government
Gazette No 23218 of 11 March 2002.]
The Bills have been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice
and Constitutional Development of the National Assembly.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bills may be submitted to the JTM within three parliamentary
working days.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
(1) Government Notice No R.37 published in Government Gazette No
23029 dated 18 January 2002, Magistrates Courts: Amendment of the
Rules of Court, made in terms of section 6 of the Rules Board for
Courts of Law Act, 1985 (Act No 107 of 1985).
(2) Government Notice No R.38 published in Government Gazette No
23029 dated 18 January 2002, Magistrates Courts: Amendment of the
Rules of Court, made in terms of section 6 of the Rules Board for
Courts of Law Act, 1985 (Act No 107 of 1985).
(3) Proclamation No R.9 published in Government Gazette No 23119
dated 15 February 2002, Commencement of sections 10, 14, 16, and
51, made in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act,
2000 (Act No 2 of 2000).
(4) Government Notice No R.187 published in Government Gazette No
23119 dated 15 February 2002, Regulations regarding the Promotion
of Access to Information, made in terms of the Promotion of Access
to Information Act, 2000 (Act No 2 of 2000).
(5) Government Notice No 292 published in Government Gazette No
23176 dated 28 February 2002, Directives made in terms of section
7 of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act, 1998 (Act No 68 of 1998).
(6) Proclamation No R.15 published in Government Gazette No 23149
dated 15 February 2002, Commencement of the Criminal Matters
Amendment Act, 1998 (Act No 68 of 1998).
(7) Government Notice No R.213 published in Government Gazette No
23149 dated 28 February 2002, Determination of remuneration
payable to curator ad litem, made in terms of section 29 of the
Mental Health Act, 1973 (Act No 18 of 1973).
(8) Government Notice No R.214 published in the Government Gazette
No 23149 dated 28 February 2002, Regulations prescribing the
tariff of allowances payable to psychiatrists who appear as
witnesses in court, made in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act,
1977 (Act No 51 of 1977).
(9) Strategic Plan for the Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development for 2002-2005.
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
Written comments received from the public and provincial legislatures
on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Second Amendment
Bill [B 17 - 2002], submitted by the Minister for Justice and
Constitutional Development in terms of section 74(6)(b) of the
Constitution, 1996.
Referred to the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional
Affairs.
MONDAY, 22 APRIL 2002
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
(1) Proclamation No 17 published in Government Gazette No 23169
dated 28 February 2002, Commencement of the Financial Intelligence
Centre Act, 2001 (Act No 38 of 2001).
(2) Proclamation R.19 published in Government Gazette No 23196 dated
1 March 2002, Fixing of date on which sections 37(1), 38(1) and
48(1) shall come into operation, made in terms of the Revenue Laws
Amendment Act, 2001 (Act No 19 of 2001).
(3) Government Notice No R.256 published in Government Gazette No
23196 dated 1 March 2002, Determination interest rate for purposes
of paragraph (a) of the definition of "official rate of interest"
in paragraph 1 of the Seventh Schedule, made in terms of the
Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962).
(4) Proclamation Notice No 20 published in Government Gazette No
23207 dated 15 March 2002, Appointment of members of the Special
Courts for the hearing of income tax appeals, made in terms of the
Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962).
(5) Government Notice No R.335 published in Government Gazette No
23246 dated 18 March 2002, Draft Treasury Regulations, made in
terms of section 78 of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999
(Act No 1 of 1999).
- The Minister of Home Affairs:
A list of approved early naturalisation applications in terms of
section 5(9) of the South African Citizenship Act, 1995 (Act No 88 of
1995).
Copies of the list of applications are available at the Office of the
Clerk of Papers on request.
WEDNESDAY, 24 APRIL 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
The Minister in the Presidency submitted the umTheto wokuThuthukisa
zokuRhatjha mazombe kunye neHlangano ejamele iindlela zokurhatjha
ezahlukeneko [B 2 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75) to the Speaker
and the Chairperson on 23 April 2002. This is the official translation
of the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill [B 2 - 2002]
(National Assembly - sec 75), which was introduced in the National
Assembly by the Minister on 4 February 2002.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
General Report of the Auditor-General on audit outcomes for 2000-2001
[RP 58-2002].
THURSDAY, 25 APRIL 2002 ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The following Bill was introduced by the Minister of Social
Development in the National Assembly on 24 April 2002 and referred
to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms
of Joint Rule 160:
(i) Probation Services Amendment Bill [B 18 - 2002] (National
Assembly - sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior
notice of its introduction published in Government Gazette No
23072 of 8 February 2002.]
The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Social
Development 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 following Bill was introduced by the Minister for Justice
and Constitutional Development in the National Assembly on 25
April 2002 and referred to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for
classification in terms of Joint Rule 160:
(i) Prevention of Corruption Bill [B 19 - 2002] (National
Assembly - sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior
notice of its introduction published in Government Gazette No
23336 of 18 April 2002.]
The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice
and Constitutional Development 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.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:
The Strategic Plan for the Department of Agriculture for 2002-2005.
- The Minister of Health:
(1) The Strategic Plan for the Department of Health for 2001-2004.
(2) The Operational Plans of the Department of Health for 2002-2003.
MONDAY, 29 APRIL 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The Minister for the Public Service and Administration on 11
April 2002 submitted a draft of the State Information Technology
Agency Amendment Bill, 2002, as well as the memorandum explaining
the objects of the proposed legislation, to the Speaker and the
Chairperson in terms of Joint Rule 159. The draft has been
referred to the Portfolio Committee on Public Service and
Administration and the Select Committee on Local Government and
Administration by the Speaker and the Chairperson, respectively,
in accordance with Joint Rule 159(2).
(2) The following Bill was introduced by the Minister of Health in
the National Assembly on 29 April 2002 and referred to the Joint
Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule
160:
(i) Health Donations Fund Act Repeal Bill [B 20 - 2002]
(National Assembly - sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and
prior notice of its introduction published in Government
Gazette No 23251 of 20 March 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.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Meat Board for 1999-2000 [RP 37-2002].
(2) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Citrus Board for 1999-2000 [RP 47-2002].
(3) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of the
Maize Board for 2000-2001 [RP 46-2002].
- The Speaker:
(1) Submission of the Financial and Fiscal Commission on the
Division of Revenue for 2003-2004, tabled in terms of section 9 of
the Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations Act, 1997 (Act No 97 of
1997).
(2) Report of the Public Protector on an investigation pertaining to
the purchase of pieces of jewellery by the Minister of Minerals
and Energy.
Report is tabled for information and copies of the report are
available from the office of the Clerk of the Papers.
- The Minister of Finance:
(1) Proclamation No R.28 published in Government Gazette No 23284,
dated 28 March 2002, Determination of date of commencement of
Unemployment Insurance Contributions Act, 2002 (Act No 4 of 2002).
(2) Proclamation No R.30 published in Government Gazette No 23292,
dated 28 March 2002, Commencement of Division of Revenue Act, 2002
(Act No 5 of 2002).
TUESDAY, 30 APRIL 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
relevant committees as mentioned below:
(1) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Finance:
(a) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for 2000-2001 [RP
16-2002].
(b) Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
of the South African Diamond Board for 2000-2001 [RP 29-2002].
(2) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Education and Recreation:
(a) The Agreement on Science and Technological Co-operation
between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, tabled in terms
of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) The Agreement between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on Co-
operation in the Field of Arts and Culture, tabled in terms of
section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(c) Strategic Plan of the Department of Sport and Recreation
for 2002-2004.
(3) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs:
(a) Report of the Judicial Service Commission for 2000-2001.
(b) Report of the Financial Statements of the Legal Aid Board
for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2000-2001.
(4) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Labour and Public Enterprises:
(a) Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Department
of Communications for 1999-2000.
(b) Strategic Plan of the Department of Labour for 2002-2005.
(5) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Public Services:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Road Accident Fund
for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on
the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 31-2002].
(b) Strategic Plan of the Department of Transport for 2002-
2003.
(6) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Land and Environmental Affairs:
(a) Government Notice No R.652 published in Government Gazette
No 22472 dated 20 July 2001, Norms and Standards in respect of
Tariffs for Water Services, made in terms of section 10(1) of
the Water Services Act, 1997 (Act No 108 of 1997).
(b) General Notice No 1775 published in Government Gazette No
22527 dated 1 August 2001, Draft Regulations under the
National Veld and Forest Fire Act, 1998 (Act No 101 of 1998).
(c) Government Notice No 757 published in Government Gazette
No 22577 dated 24 August 2001, Determining of an Interest
Rate, made in terms of section 59(3)(a) of the National Water
Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(d) Government Notice No 850 published in Government Gazette
No 22652 dated 7 September 2001, Invitation to submit written
comments on Proposed Directions with regard to the Control and
Management of General Communal and General Small Waste
Disposal sites, made in terms of section 20(5) of the
Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No 73 of 1989).
(e) Government Notice No 1096 published in Government Gazette
No 22801 dated 9 November 2001, Determining of an Interest
Rate, made in terms of section 59(3)(a) of the National Water
Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(f) Government Notice No 1173 published in Government Gazette
No 22830 dated 13 November 2001, Regarding the Prohibition on
the making of Fires in the Open Air: Western Cape, made in
terms of the Forest Act, 1984 (Act No 122 of 1984).
(g) Government Notice No 1174 published in Government Gazette
No 22830 dated 13 November 2001, Regarding the Prohibition on
the making of Fires in the Open Air: Districts of Clanwilliam,
Piketberg, Ceres, Tulbagh, Worcester, Caledon, Paarl,
Stellenbosch, Strand and Somerset West, made in terms of the
Forest Act, 1984 (Act No 122 of 1984).
(h) Government Notice No 1175 published in Government Gazette
No 22830 dated 13 November 2001, Regarding the Prohibition on
the making of Fires in the Open Air: Districts of Swellendam
and Montagu, made in terms of the Forest Act, 1984 (Act No 122
of 1984).
(i) Government Notice No 1201 published in Government Gazette
No 22839 dated 23 November 2001, Regarding the Establishment
of the Thabina Irrigation Scheme Water User Association,
District of Mopani in the Northern Province, Water Management
Area Number 2, made in terms of the National Water Act, 1998
(Act No 36 of 1998).
(j) Government Notice No 1306 published in Government Gazette
No 22904 dated 14 December 2001, Regarding the Transformation
of the Kalahari West Water Board, Division of Gordonia,
Province of the Northern Cape, into the Kalahari West Water
User Association, Water Management Area Number 14, Province of
the Northern Cape, made in terms of the National Water Act,
1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(k) Government Notice No 1307 published in Government Gazette
No 22904 dated 14 December 2001, Regarding the Transformation
of the Kalahari East Water Board, Division of Postmasburg and
Kuruman, Province of the Northern Cape, into the Kalahari East
Water User Association, Water Management Area Number 10,
Province of the Northern Cape, made in terms of the National
Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(l) Government Notice No 1308 published in Government Gazette
No 22904 dated 14 December 2001, Regarding the Transformation
of the Kat River Irrigation Board, Division of Stockenstroom,
Victoria East and Fort Beaufort, Province of the Eastern Cape,
into the Kat River Valley Water User Association, Water
Management Area Number 15, Province of the Eastern Cape, made
in terms of the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(m) Government Notice No 1309 published in Government Gazette
No 22904 dated 14 December 2001, Regarding the Transformation
of the Great Letaba Major Irrigation Board, Districts of
Letaba and Pietersburg, Northern Province, into the Letaba
Water User Association, Water Management Area Number 2,
Northern Province, made in terms of the National Water Act,
1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(n) Government Notice No 1357 published in Government Gazette
No 22929 dated 14 December 2001, Assessing DWAF's compliance
with the NEMA Principles, made in terms of the National
Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No 107 of 1998).
(o) Government Notice No 42 published in Government Gazette No
23037 dated 25 January 2002, Regarding the Transformation of
the Blyde River Irrigation Board, Magisterial District of
Phalaborwa, Northern Province, into the Lower Blyde River
Water User Association, Water Management Area Number 4,
Northern Province, made in terms of the National Water Act,
1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(p) Government Notice No 89 published in Government Gazette No
23053 dated 1 February 2002, Regarding the Establishment of
the Lebalelo Water User Association, Districts of Letaba and
Lydenburg, in the Northern and Mpumalanga Provinces, Water
Management Area Number 4, made in terms of the National Water
Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(q) Government Notice No 91 published in Government Gazette No
23053 dated 1 February 2002, Directions with regard to the
Control and Management of General Communal and General Small
Waste Disposal Sites, made in terms of section 20(5)(b) of the
Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No 73 of 1989).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Transport:
(a) Bilateral Air Services Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement.
- The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:
The Medium Term Strategic and Operational Plan of the Department of
Land Affairs for 2002-2006.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, dated 30 April 2002, as follows:
The Joint Rules of Parliament provide that the Committee must review the Constitution annually and report on the review to the Assembly and the Council. The Rules also provide that the Committee must, by notice in the public media by 1 May, invite the public to submit to the Committee, within 30 days after placing of the advertisement, written representations on any constitutional matter (Joint Rule 102(1) and (2).
As a result of a very full parliamentary programme, the Committee requests the Assembly and the Council to give it permission to place its advertisement referred to in paragraph (2) above before 10 May 2002.
Report to be considered.
THURSDAY, 2 MAY 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
The following Bill was introduced by the Minister for Provincial and
Local Government in the National Assembly on 2 May 2002 and referred to
the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint
Rule 160:
(i) Disaster Management Bill [B 21 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec
76) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior notice of its
introduction published in Government Gazette No 23254 of 28 March
2002.]
The Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and
Local Government 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.
FRIDAY, 3 MAY 2002 TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Correctional Services:
Annual Report of the Judicial Inspectorate on Prisons and Prisoners for
2001-2002 [RP 61-2002].
MONDAY, 6 MAY 2002
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Transport:
(1) Bilateral Air Services Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, tabled in terms of section 231(3)
of the Constitution, 1996.
(2) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement. 2. The Minister of Trade and Industry:
(1) Trade Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, tabled in
terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(2) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement.
(3) Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement between the Government
of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic
of Belarus, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution,
1996.
(4) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement.
TUESDAY, 7 MAY 2002
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Home Affairs:
(1) Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Electoral
Commission for 1998-1999, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 1998-1999 [RP 11-2002].
(2) Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Electoral
Commission for 1999-2000, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 1999-2000 [RP 12-2002].
(3) Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Electoral
Commission for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 13-2002].
- The Minister of Housing:
Strategic Plan of the Department of Housing for 2002-2004.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs on Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, dated 6 May 2002:
The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Protocol.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Social Services on the Mental Health Care Bill [B 69B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 30 April 2002:
The Select Committee on Social Services, having considered the subject of the Mental Health Care Bill [B 69B - 2001] (National Assembly - sec 76), referred to it, reports the Bill with amendments [B 69C - 2001].