National Council of Provinces - 06 June 2002
THURSDAY, 6 JUNE 2002 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 14:05.
The Deputy Chairperson of Committees took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr K D S DURR: Chairman, I give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:
That the Council -
(1) notes -
(a) the political currents flowing in Malawi that run counter to the
direction Africa should be going as envisaged in the Nepad
initiative, and by the world democratic community;
(b) that President Bakili Muluzi of Malawi is seeking a third term
in office, and that the ruling party is seeking to change the
constitution accordingly;
(c) that these attempts to change the constitution have led to large-
scale protests in the streets, and to protest from local and
international bodies and organisations;
(d) that inter alia the Malawi Council of Churches, the Muslim
community and the Council for Nongovernmental Organisations of
Malawi are in agreement that the constitutional change should
not occur, and that they have voiced their opposition;
(e) that the IMF has failed to disburse any funding under Malawi's
poverty reduction and growth facility in 2001-2002, citing
``concerns of transparency, corruption and good governance'';
and
(f) further notes that the International Bar Association, the global
voice of the legal profession, has also voiced its concern about
and opposition to the proposed changes to that country's
constitution, and that the IBA director, Mark Ellis, said: ``In
the face of widespread food shortages and poverty, there is now
a danger that the country could lose its grip on democracy'';
and
(2) in view of the aforementioned, calls upon our Government to use its influence in the region and with the government of Malawi along diplomatic channels to express its concern and opposition to the proposed changes.
Mnr C ACKERMANN: Mnr die Voorsitter, by die volgende sitting van die Raad sal ek voorstel:
Dat die Raad kennis neem -
(1) dat mnr Marthinus van Schalkwyk eenparig deur die Wes-Kaapse hoofraad en uitvoerende komitee van die Nuwe NP aangewys is as premierskandidaat van die Wes-Kaap; en
(2) dat mnr Van Schalkwyk uitstekend toegerus is om die amp te beklee vanweë die feit dat hy -
(a) reeds diep spore getrap het in die Suid-Afrikaanse politiek;
(b) 'n groot rol speel in die bemagtiging van opposisieparty in
Afrika deur sy betrokkenheid by die demokratiese Afrika-unie;
(c) oor die vermoë beskik om uiteenlopende standpunte met mekaar te
versoen in belang van goeie regering en doeltreffende
dienslewering; en
(d) besig is om 'n belangrike rol te speel in die rangskikking van
die Suid-Afrikaanse politieke landskap ten einde te voldoen aan
die eise van 'n moderne demokrasie. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mr C ACKERMANN: Mr Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the Council I shall move:
That the Council notes that Mr Marthinus van Schalkwyk -
(1) has been unanimously elected by the Western Cape head council and the executive committee of the New NP as candidate for premier of the Western Cape; and
(2) is excellently equipped to fill the position owing to the fact that he - (a) has already made his mark in South African politics;
(b) plays a big role in the empowerment of the opposition parties in
Africa through his involvement with the democratic African
Union;
(c) has the ability to reconcile diverse viewpoints in the interests
of good governance and efficient service delivery; and
(d) is playing an important role in the rearrangement of the South
African political landscape in order to meet the demands of a
modern indigenous democracy.]
MILITARY CONFRONTATION BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G A LUCAS: Chairperson, I move without notice: That the Council -
(1) expresses its deep concern at the continuation of the military confrontation between India and Pakistan over the disputed area of Kashmir;
(2) is convinced that there can be no military solution to the conflict around Kashmir;
(3) calls on both governments to take into consideration the consequences of war for the people of their countries; and
(4) challenges both countries to engage, without preconditions, in a political dialogue aimed at achieving a lasting political settlement of the conflict.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONFLICT IN MIDDLE EAST
(Draft Resolution)
Mr P D N MALOYI: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) expresses its deep concern over the current deadlock in the Middle East peace process;
(2) expresses further concern over the recent killing and wounding of innocent civilians on both sides;
(3) condemns the repressive policies and actions of the Israeli government, including the economic suffocation of the Palestinian people;
(4) reiterates its support for the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; and
(5) supports the call for increased pressure on Israel to comply with existing agreements and their timely implementation.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
REHABILITATION OF PRISONERS
(Draft Resolution)
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes the statement by the Minister of Correctional Services that effective rehabilitation depends on narrowing the wealth gap, eradicating violence as a lifestyle of choice and changing socio- economic conditions;
(2) further notes that the Minister is committed to placing the rehabilitation of prisoners at the core of his activities so that a balance is struck between rehabilitation and safe custody;
(3) believes that the shift from a punitive approach to one focused on rehabilitation poses major challenges;
(4) also believes that the Minister and his department are capable of dealing with these new challenges; and
(5) therefore commends the Minister for working hard to improve the lives of prisoners.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
EVIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM HARKSENS
(Draft Resolution)
Mr C ACKERMANN: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) the documents seized by police from Mr Harksen and his wife, and
which were handed to the Desai commission on Thursday, include a
printout of Mr Harksen's cellphone bill which shows that in
January this year he was contacting Mr Morkel up to five times a
day;
(b) among the documents is a copy of the full lawyer's account for
Mr Morkel's court case against the New NP in November last year,
and that the commission's leader of evidence, Craig Webster,
told the commission that it was found in an envelope under the
sink in Jeanette Harksen's boutique in central Cape Town;
(c) Mr Harksen has told the Desai commission he paid almost half of
the bill, which totalled over R229 000;
(d) Mr Morkel has consistently denied receiving any donations from
Harksen;
(e) the documents also include an invoice form Seeff residential
letting for the rent on the Higgovale home that Morkel lived in
after he was ousted as Western Cape Premier last year; and
(2) calls on Morkel immediately to resign as mayor of Cape Town.
[Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Is there any objection to the motion? There is an objection. The motion therefore becomes notice of a motion.
FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
(Draft Resolution)
Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes -
(a) the announcement by the Minister for Agriculture and Land
Affairs, Thoko Didiza, that South Africa's meat exports are to
be boosted following a successful fight against the scourge of
foot-and-mouth disease;
(b) that we have now been granted new foot-and-mouth disease free
status by the international body which sets standards on animal
health;
(c) that this will lead to increased levels of meat exports and
provide relief to domestic meat producers; and
(2) thanks the Minister and her department for the excellent work they have done to eliminate the disease and restore the confidence of emerging and small-scale red meat producers.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I would recommend that we move the following amendment:
That the following paragraph be inserted after paragraph (2):
(3) also thanks all the farmers and rural communities that contributed to our improved position.
Amendment agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
Motion, as amended, agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution, namely:
That the Council -
(1) notes -
(a) the announcement by the Minister for Agriculture and Land
Affairs, Thoko Didiza, that South Africa's meat exports are to
be boosted following a successful fight against the scourge of
foot-and-mouth disease;
(b) that we have now been granted new foot-and-mouth disease free
status by the international body which sets standards on animal
health;
(c) that this will lead to increased levels of meat exports and
provide relief to domestic meat producers; and
(2) thanks the Minister and her department for the excellent work they have done to eliminate the disease and restore the confidence of emerging and small-scale red meat producers.
(3) also thanks all the farmers and the rural communities that contributed to our improved position.
SOLVING UNEMPLOYMENT
(Draft Resolution)
Mr B J TOLO: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes the concerns expressed by President Mbeki about the overwhelming levels of unskilled and unemployed people in our country;
(2) shares the President’s concern that funds such as the Umsobomvu Fund and funds that accrue from the skills levy for training are indeed underutilised and have taken off too slowly;
(3) further notes that the raising of skills levels is absolutely critical to ensuring measurable improvements in unemployment and proper empowerment of our people; and
(4) calls on all agencies and skills training providers to demonstrate commitment to the plight of unskilled people in our country through improved training and disbursement of the funds available.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
WARNING ISSUED BY MICRO FINANCE REGULATORY COUNCIL
(Draft Resolution)
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes the newspaper reports that the Micro Finance Regulatory Council has warned people not to sign any blank documents when borrowing money;
(2) further notes that some borrowers have complained of money being deducted from their salaries in terms of garnishee orders obtained by micro lenders;
(3) also notes that the Micro Finance Regulatory Council has done numerous investigations and has brought 44 cases before an independent disciplinary committee; and
(4) therefore calls upon the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to play his part in curbing the abuses and to encourage the officials of the court to peruse any such documents they receive.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONGRATULATIONS TO BAFANA BAFANA
(Draft Resolution)
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) congratulates Bafana Bafana on its imperious performance in its opening fixture against Paraguay at the World Cup on 1 June 2002, when Dr Quentin Fortune gave the kiss of life to a seemingly dead situation;
(2) further hopes that now that an insatiable appetite for soccer glory has been awakened, the second fixture against Slovenia on Saturday, 8 June 2002 will also result in a score that will bring further pride and glory, not only to South Africa, but to Africa as well.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, on a point of order: Although we agree with the motion, this motion has been put to the House previously and we cannot vote on it again. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: There is no formal objection to the motion. The motion is agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, with respect, perhaps you do not understand the nature of the intervention by my colleague.
A similar motion was passed either yesterday or the day before in this Council. The motion complimented and congratulated South Africa, and also the other African sides that have done so well, and wished them well in the future games.
Whilst we agree with the contents of the motion, it is not permissible in terms of our Rules, as a similar motion has been passed in this House earlier.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, Chief Whip, for that explanation. So, hon Raju, you will understand that the motion cannot be allowed.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THE AFRICAN UNION
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mr Chairperson, I will be brief. I am very pleased that the NCOP working group has arrived at a point where we are able to present a report to the NCOP on the assignment that we were given by the Council to examine the various protocols associated with the establishment of the African Union and the Pan-African Parliament and associated institutions related to these two bodies.
We have taken the very direct decision as the Parliament of South Africa that we will ensure that we play a role in the unfolding positive developments on our continent. We have taken a stand which asserts that parliaments have to play an international role in society. For far too long we have had a situation in which our parliaments have allowed the executive essentially to lead international matters and all relationships that countries have with institutions at the international level and with foreign nations.
As this Parliament, we have led the way in ensuring that we do play a role in giving consideration to international instruments, to international developments and to strengthening relationships with countries across the world. Our working group report indicates a fairly careful scrutiny of the protocol, now an Act, leading to the establishment of the African Union and leading, we hope, following the launch in July of the African Union in our country, to the establishment of the various bodies emanating from the Constitutive Act of the African Union.
We have also given scrutiny to the Pan-African Parliament protocol. We hope that our Government will soon be tabling it in Parliament so that we may consider the protocol and ratify the instrument, in order to ensure that we proceed to act on these very instruments that Africans have decided to adopt.
Our continent has said it is moving on a new path, a path of democracy, good governance and development. The scrutiny that we have made of these instruments indicates that indeed they have the framework that will allow our continent to move forward in a positive way. A great deal of work needs to be done in order to ensure that at a practical level we indeed achieve the ideals that are elaborated in the Acts we are going to decide upon in a few moments.
We are fortunate that we work and live in a country committed to democracy, that we have a Parliament that is democratic and open, that bases itself on universal principles of openness and transparency. We now have an important role to play in ensuring that in giving life to the Constitutive Act of the African Union and eventually to the Pan African protocol we also work with parliaments on the continent to ensure that in each country they enjoy the principles and levels of democracy that we ourselves hold to and practice in South Africa. This is an important assignment that we have been given.
I commend the report to the Council and I hope hon members will support the report and the various recommendations we have made within it and that, in particular, they will agree that we now begin to work in a joint formation with the National Assembly working group so that Parliament will formulate a set of recommendations, which could then be taken forward to our Government as they proceed to the launch of the African Union in July.
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Report be adopted.
IN FAVOUR OF: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, Northern Province, North West, Western Cape.
Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution. RESOLUTION OF THE NCOP WORKING GROUP ON THE AFRICAN UNION
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I think it is just appropriate that this Council recognises the contribution and the efforts by the Chairperson of the NCOP in relation to the work that has been done around the African Union in respect of the preparation and the engagement of members in this important activity. It has also been suggested that we will in fact carry this activity out to the nine provincial legislatures in order to develop sufficient and adequate awareness of this very important programme.
I would like to express on behalf of the Council our gratitude to the hon Chairperson and the presiding officers of the National Assembly for their active engagement with this important and critical area of development.
I move: That the Council, subject to the concurrence of the National Assembly, resolves that the National Council of Provinces Working Group on the African Union confer with the National Assembly Working Group on the African Union.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
PRECEDENCE TO ORDER OF THE DAY
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Mr Chairperson, before the Secretary proceeds to read the next order of the day, I move without notice:
That the Council, subject to the concurrence of the National Assembly, resolves that the National Council of Provinces Working Group on the African Union confer with the National Assembly Working Group on the African Union.
I have conferred with most of the representatives of the other political parties and they had no objection.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AND DIVERSITY AGENCY BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Mr Chairperson, may I also add my own appreciation to the Chairperson of the NCOP for all the work she and the other presiding officers have done in regard to an African Parliament.
It is a great pleasure and honour to introduce this legislation to the NCOP. It paves the way towards making a living reality for all South Africans of their right to freedom of information and expression.
Indeed, the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill now before this House gives expression to a major South African achievement. It represents the building of an unprecedented partnership that will allow Government, the media industry and donors to work together to redress the legacy of imbalances in access to the media.
It represents an important step towards the fulfilment of the pledge enshrined in our Constitution, that all citizens shall enjoy freedom of expression, including freedom of the media and freedom to receive or impart information and ideas.
The Bill provides effective means for implementing the recommendation of Comtask in 1996, adopted by Government, that Government should ``facilitate the process of setting up a statutorily recognised media development agency … will operate a statutorily recognised subsidy system for community and independent media in South Africa’’.
The journey from Comtask in 1996 to the NCOP in 2002 has been long and complex. But if it has evoked some impatience and frustration amongst those eager to benefit from support for media development, it has been thorough in seeking consensus in a complex sector of our society.
Conferences, consultations, research and public hearings, not to speak of debate in the media, have left the imprint of wide-ranging views and opinions on this piece of legislation. We believe that the work has been done to allow the NCOP to put the final parliamentary seal on the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill.
Generations of oppression and domination have left our emerging democracy with a skewed information and media landscape. While some progress has been made in changing the media industry since the achievement of democracy, it is only a very small beginning compared to what is needed.
We are constantly reminded of the enduring legacy. Recently, Statistics SA published results of a survey of conditions in the nodal areas of the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme. Nine million South Africans live in these areas, including the bulk of the poorest of the poor.
Amongst other things, the survey found that in these areas only three quarters of households had a radio and only one third had a television set. Other surveys tell us that in such areas newspapers are read by less than 20% of the people. None of us would want such a situation to persist. We must find ways that assist in the dismantling of the many barriers to participation in the media as consumers, as writers and as managers.
Transformation must touch every major institution and sector of our society if we are to make a reality of our vision of a fully democratic society; and that includes the media. The recognition that it is in the interests of democracy that we should all work together to address the imbalances of the past, informs the broad support for the Media Development and Diversity Agency that has been built.
A driving force in the process towards an MDDA is the principle that Government, private media and international donors should jointly mobilise resources for media development and diversity. There have been debates about how to do this. A proposal for a compulsory levy on advertising has given way to a voluntary approach, but, throughout, the principle of partnership has guided the process, and it is firmly entrenched in the legislation.
The media industry has committed itself to supporting the work of the MDDA. We are preparing to approach donor agencies for their support now that it has been clearly demonstrated that South Africans are going to work together in a sustained way to promote media development and diversity.
We should note that while this is a partnership, Government is putting the bulk of the money into the agency. At the same time, the private sector contribution has great significance. There are also few, if any, countries in which the commercial media sector has joined hands with government to give material support to a statutory agency.
I must therefore once again express our appreciation of the commitment to media development and diversity on the part of the media houses. We thank them for the way they have engaged with us in working towards positions which, if they have not brought complete agreement, are ones with which all of us, I believe, can feel comfortable.
Commitments to date from Government and industry, which are to be formalised once the agency is in existence, amount to just over R40 million per annum. There will be further material support such as training, access to print and distribution facilities or subsidies and discounts that the MDDA will be seeking for developing small media. We believe that the process towards the transformation in the advertising industry will produce creative ways of helping small media meet the challenges posed by the economic imperatives of advertising.
The composition of the board likewise reflects the principle of partnership. Six members will be publicly nominated and appointed through a parliamentary process. Three other members will be directly appointed by the President, taking into account the funding of the agency and this will include one from the commercial print media and one from the commercial broadcast media sector.
It is essential that an agency concerned with the media should be independent and at arm’s length from Government, from its funders in the media industry and from any other donors. The Bill therefore requires the agency to be demonstrably independent. It requires its members to be impartial and to act ``without fear, favour or prejudice, and without any political or commercial interference.’’
The strong provision dealing with conflict of interest, modelled on the Icasa Act, is there to ensure that funds are not disbursed to further the interests of any member of the board. Other principles of good corporate governance are written into the legislation. This includes transparency in the MDDA’s operations.
Further, the agency is subject to the Public Finance Management Act, audited by the Auditor-General, and must report to Parliament every year. The guidelines it follows in providing support must be set out for all to see in the form of regulations. In this regard, let me stress that in this matter also the principle of partnership applies. These guidelines require the agreement of both the board and the Minister in the making of regulations; neither can make them on their own.
The Bill expressly prohibits the MDDA from interfering in the editorial content of the media. Its focus, rather, is on addressing and reducing the barriers to participation in the media that have stood in the way of previously disadvantaged sections of our society. Support for media development will, we are convinced, create conditions favouring greater diversity.
That support will include direct cash grants to community media projects, capacity-building as well as training in all areas of media production and distribution. In the case of small commercial media, the main support envisaged is the facilitation of favourable loans, including assistance in developing viable business plans and capacity-building.
In the case of community media this may involve negotiations with advertisers and marketers to explore new ways of generating income for new operations as well as to ensure their longer-term survival.
In the case of small commercial media, the MDDA is empowered to interact with financial institutions and small business support programmes to facilitate access to loans on more favourable conditions. That would help utilise funding programmes that currently exist even where they were not explicitly created to deal with media needs.
The MDDA will liaise with organisations such as Icasa and the Universal Service Agency so that the activities of the different bodies complement one another. By supplementing and drawing together within a comprehensive framework many threads of support for media development and diversity, the MDDA will provide a powerful impetus to the development of community media and small commercial media amongst historically disadvantaged sectors of our society. Its impact will, we have no doubt, be felt far beyond the small media sector.
In the course of the public hearings and discussion around this initiative, we heard eloquent expression of the hunger amongst our people for media that reflect their own lives in their own communities. Research points to their wish for more information of a kind that they can use to improve their lives.
By helping to meet those information needs, community media will promote an interest in the media generally. Those who start with media that empowers them in their immediate circumstances will move naturally to other media products. Promoting a culture of reading will be of benefit also to the established media.
When the MDDA facilitates training and capacity-building in the small media sector it will be felt, as it always has been, far beyond this sector. Many of those who today are beginning to change the character of our large media houses cut their teeth in the community media sector.
In most cases the newspapers that nurtured those communication skills and creativity, the media which opened a window to public information and discourse, have disappeared. The MDDA will help create the conditions for a vigorous and expanding small-media sector that will work to the benefit of the country’s entire media sector. It will strengthen the hands of citizens as informed and active agents in the reconstruction of their country and the development of a just and prosperous society.
I would like to thank the Select committee on Labour and Public Enterprises and its chairperson for the attention they gave to this Bill, which has enabled it to come before this Council today. This is a momentous occasion, marking the final stages of a policy development and legislative process that has been unique in many ways. Participation and partnership have been our watchwords as the country embarked on a course through largely uncharted territory.
It would have been possible to take another route, and for Government to go it alone and simply set up a media development and diversity agency. Instead we have introduced legislation to create an agency at arm’s length from Government and based on a partnership. That, we believe, is the path that will do the most to foster more diversified media in South Africa.
Though the passing of this Bill will complete the parliamentary process, it will also open the way to the challenges of implementation and development. Practical steps towards establishing the agency must begin in earnest. Those who have been marginalised from the media will be planning their applications. Agreements and commitments must be formalised and finalised. A board must come into existence and staff be appointed so that funds can be disbursed.
In short, all the possibilities created by this legislation must be realised so that more of our citizens enjoy the rights of freedom of expression and information. I have great pleasure in commending this Bill to the NCOP. [Applause.]
Mrs C NKUNA: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, allow me to start by reading a quote from the Triple Inquiry report of the IBA of 1995:
Access to information is central to any democracy, as a country can only be regarded as truly democratic when its citizens have a say that goes beyond the vote at national and local level.
This quote stresses the importance of access to information in any democracy. It implies the importance of a people of a country having access to the media, freedom of expression through the media, and diversity in the media.
As we all know, information is power. It is growth. It casts aside ignorance. It is the reason that we had our first African going into space. Hence today we are a very proud nation. It represents opportunities. We live in a world that is driven by information. A nation that reads has access to information and is a winning nation.
This Bill seeks to achieve that kind of democracy, a democracy in which a broader South African population has access to information, information that reaches even the remote areas, thus creating a public that can express itself freely through the media. It seeks to promote diversity in media that know no race, sex or age. Access to the media is a right for all South Africans. The end result would be to create a winning nation for South Africa.
Furthermore, it is based on the need to address the legacy of imbalances in access to and use of the media. As we all know, in the past the majority of our people were denied this right. They were denied access to information and the media. This right was reserved for a minority.
Our people were denied a right to express their views freely through the media. This was compounded by high levels of illiteracy, underdevelopment, particularly in the rural areas, and little or no infrastructure. These are still visible realities. These realities include a concentration of the media in metropolitan areas, the low density of media infrastructure and the restriction of access to distribution for community and small commercial media enterprises. A legacy in media organisations of inadequate education, training and advancement of disadvantaged South Africans is clearly visible.
Today, through our support for this Bill, we as the committee are saying that these realities should become a thing of the past and that this Bill is indeed about translating the aspirations of freedom of expression into reality. It is an expression of our conviction that we must address the legacies of the past.
It is our belief that the ideals contained in this Bill can only succeed and be achieved if funded by a partnership of Government and the stakeholders. It is very important as it confirms the Government’s commitment to working together with various stakeholders for what best serves the nation.
The Bill provides for the establishment of an independent agency that will, through support, facilitation and research, help to create an enabling environment for media development and diversity in South Africa. That is important for our democracy.
This agency is necessary for our democracy for it will play a key role in bringing about change in the media. We are confident that it will help to improve the communication environment in a way that builds infrastructure. We believe that it will foster the emergence of media that give expression to voices that are currently marginalised.
It will allow the media to develop to meet the diverse needs of South Africans. Our country is in transition, so I am sure that members will agree with me when I say that this agency will play a very crucial role in our democracy, in particular the transformation of the media sector.
It is our firm belief that this independent body will be a key player in overcoming the barriers to media development like the lack of access to resources, training, education and literacy. By overcoming such barriers to the media, the MDDA will promote a climate conducive to greater media diversity.
Some of the primary functions that are proposed include providing and facilitating funding and other support mechanisms and training and capacity- building for community media that serve the interests of various marginalised communities. It will also support small commercial media and fund research that is relevant to media development and diversity.
This Bill is directly based on our constitutional rights that ensure the freedom of our press and media and our freedom to receive or impart information or ideas. It affirms our people’s right to freedom of expression.
I would like to conclude by congratulating the department on the role that they have played in this Bill, being aware of the fact that it must have been a very challenging task. On behalf of my committee I would like to say once again that we support this Bill. A better life for all demands that we must have access to media. [Applause.]
Dr P J C NEL: Mnr die Voorsitter, die wetsontwerp het ten doel om ‘n agentskap vir media-ontwikkeling daar te stel, wat deur ‘n raad beheer sal word. Klousule 3 handel met die doelstellings van die agentskap, wat onder meer die bevordering van die vryheid van die pers en ander media aanspreek. Die agentskap sal hom ook beywer om die verskeidenheid van menings en stemme in die media te bevorder. Die agentskap sal ook toesien dat die konstitusionele reg van vryheid van spraak deur alle Suid-Afrikaners geniet sal word. Ook die voorheen benadeelde taal- en kultuurgroepe in Suid-Afrika wie se toegang tot en die gebruik van die media beperk was.
Dit is bevorderlik vir gesonde debat wat die lewe van almal raak en dit bevorder ook ‘n beter begrip vir ‘n samelewing wat dikwels nog in kompartemente lewe. Dat daar nog ongelykhede en wanbalanse in die industrie bestaan, is ongetwyfeld so, asook steeds hindernisse wat verhoed dat ‘n sekere deel van die gemeenskap toegang tot sekere hulpmiddele het. Deur die verwydering van hierdie hindernisse kan die agentskap ‘n klimaat skep vir groter media diversiteit. Meer kompetisie gaan daartoe bydra dat die media wat tans funksioneer, beter diens aan die gemeenskap kan lewer.
Dit is waar dat daar geen noemenswaardige groei oor die afgelope agt jaar ten opsigte van media diversiteit was nie. ‘n Mens sou verwag dat die industrie meer doen om meer mense uit die voorheen benadeelde gemeenskappe te betrek by die bedryf. Ongelukkig het dit nie na wense gebeur nie en was die Regering verplig deur die Grondwet om met wetgewing te kom om dit aan te spreek.
In ‘n jong ontwikkelende demokrasie soos Suid-Afrika kan ‘n mens nie anders as om enige stap wat die verskeidenheid van menings en stemme in die media bevorder, te verwelkom nie. Die Nuwe NP bevraagteken egter die feit dat die wetsontwerp voorsiening maak dat sekere media deur ‘n agentskap finansieel gehelp kan word deur of direkte subsidie of lae rentekoerse. Dit beteken dat die gevaar kan ontstaan dat die media sy onafhanklikheid kan verloor, as gevolg van ‘n finansiële afhanklikheid van die staat, wat dit vir hulle onmoontlik sal maak om hul waghondfunksie te vervul. Die direkte finansiële steun moet liewer gehanteer word deur ‘n onafhanklike liggaam op ‘n streng besigheidsbasis, ná voorlegging van besigheidsplanne.
Die feit dat die samestelling van die raad en die mag by die politici lê, is werklik nie bevorderlik vir persvryheid nie. Die Nuwe NP wil nie beweer dat dit wel sal gebeur nie, en wys nie ‘n vinger na die huidige Minister nie. Die wetsontwerp, soos dit staan, maak dit volgens ons mening wel moontlik vir die staat om in te meng in die funksionering van die media, wat ‘n absolute onafhanklike been van die demokrasie moet bly. Laat ons nie die foute van die verlede herhaal nie. Om hierdie rede kan die Nuwe NP ongelukkig nie hierdie wetsontwerp soos dit nou staan, steun nie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr P J C Nel: Mr Chairperson, this Bill aims to establish an agency for media development, which will be governed by a board. Section 3 deals with the objectives of the agency, which, inter alia, address the promotion of freedom of the press and other media. This agency will also endeavour to promote the diversity of opinions and voices in the media. The agency will also see to it that the constitutional right to freedom of speech is enjoyed by all South Africans. Also, the previously disadvantaged language and cultural groups in South Africa whose access to and use of the media were limited, will be addressed.
This is conducive to lively debate which will touch the lives of all and this will also promote a better understanding in a society that is often still compartmentalised. That there still exists inequalities and imbalances in the industry is undoubtedly so, as well as fact that the obstacles prevent a certain portion of the community access to certain resources. With the removal of these obstacles the agency can create a climate for greater media diversity. More competition will lead to the media, as it is currently functioning, contributing to better service delivery to the community.
It is true that there has been no significant growth over the past eight years with regard to media diversity. One would expect that the industry would have done more to involve people from the previously disadvantaged communities in this industry. Unfortunately, this did not happen sufficiently and the Government was forced to produce legislation through the Constitution in order to address this.
In a young developing democracy such as South Africa one cannot help but welcome any step which promotes the diversity and opinions and voices in the media. The New NP, however, questions the fact that this Bill makes provision for certain media to be financially assisted by an agency through direct subsidies or low interest rates. This implies that there is a danger that the media’s independence could be lost because of a financial dependency on the state which will make it impossible for them to fulfil their watchdog function. The direct financial support must rather be handled by an independent body on a strict business basis, after presentation of business plans.
That the composition of the board and their powers are residing with the politicians is really not desirable for freedom of the press. The New NP would not like to allege that this will indeed happen, and it is not pointing a finger at the current Minister. The Bill, as it stands, in our opinion, makes it very well possible for the state to intervene in the functioning of the media, which must remain an absolutely independent part of the democracy. Let us not repeat mistakes from the past. For this reason, the New NP can unfortunately not support this Bill as it stands. [Applause.]]
Ms M P THEMBA: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, the aim of the Media Development and Diversity Agency Bill is to help create an enabling environment for media development and diversity that is conducive to the diverse public of South Africa. It is a channel of development that will reflect the needs and aspirations of marginalised and disadvantaged communities to have access to the media and the media industry.
The Bill seeks to fulfil this task by promoting media development and diversity by providing support, primarily to the community and small commercial media projects, in an equitable representation within the media in general. This Bill proposes the establishment of the media development and diversity agency as well as the media development and diversity agency board to oversee the functions of the agency.
One of the challenges this Bill seeks to address is the media’s failure to adequately use and promote indigenous languages and the restriction of access to distribution of community and small commercial media enterprises.
The Media Development and Diversity Agency’s role in facilitating an enabling environment is to contribute to media development by providing support to community media and, secondly, to small commercial media by providing direct financial support to community media projects.
This Bill will be instrumental in contributing to further media development and diversity to marginalised communities in that it proposes to address the obstacles to development and diversity. Those obstacles are: the concentration of media in metropolitan areas; the low density of media infrastructure; the restriction of access to distribution for community and small commercial enterprises; the lack of resources to support the growth of community and small commercial enterprises; the legacy in media organisations of inadequate education, training and advancement of black South Africans; the need to encourage framework and environmental conditions conducive to the promotion of development-orientated news and information; and the challenges posed by rapid development of new media, including the need for new skills and greater telecommunications access.
The objective of the agency is to promote development and diversity in the South African media throughout the country, consistent with the right to freedom of expression as entrenched in section 16(1) of the South African Constitution, in particular to freedom of the press, in order to receive and impart information or ideas so as to encourage ownership and control of and access to media by historically disadvantaged communities and historically diminished indigenous language and cultural groups.
The agency will also encourage the development of human resources and training and capacity-building within the media industry, especially amongst historically disadvantaged groups, which will channel and raise public awareness with regard to media development, and promote literacy and a culture of reading.
This Bill also proposes the creation of a media development and diversity agency board. The role of this board will be to promote media development and diversity by identifying historically disadvantaged communities and persons that are not adequately served by the media.
The board will also select projects in accordance with the criteria prescribed in terms of clause 19(3), which provides that the board must prescribe detailed criteria for selecting community media projects, small commercial media projects and research projects.
Lastly, the board has the power to negotiate with public utility organisations and financial institutions to acquire indirect support for projects, including support in the form of discounts or subsidies in print and signal distribution, postal rates, telephone tariffs and low interest- rate loans. [Applause]
Mr K D S DURR: Dankie, mnr die Voorsitter, dat u my aan die woord stel. Dit is goed om die agb lid mnr Van Niekerk in die Stoel te sien. [Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to speak. It is good to see the hon member Mr Van Niekerk in the Chair.]
We have three estates - the Government, the judiciary and the legislature - and the media is often referred to as the fourth estate. Their constitutional position is the same as that which governs the freedom of speech of the individual. One suspects that if the framers of our Constitution had felt the need for something like this Bill or this board, they might have included it in Chapter 9, Section 181(1) of the Constitution, along with the other bodies that were established at that time with laudable objectives, which are functioning. But they rested with the freedom of expression clause in Chapter 2, section 16(1) of the Constitution, as set out in the Bill.
This Bill puts us in a difficult position, because the expressed intentions of the Bill - there is no question - are laudable, but how to achieve those laudable goals is something else, and that is what puts us in a bit of a quandary. The big problem, of course, is that he who pays the piper calls the tune. There is a balance between the Government and the media - between the size and sheer scale of Government and that of the media - and this somehow skews the balance. It somehow creates imbalances in that it gives, or could give, the state leverage over the media, which, by definition, means a diminution of the media’s role.
I have to add that much is said about donations by the media industry, or promises of large-scale donations running into millions, to meet the objects of this Bill. If that is not tax deductible, then that amounts basically to an additional tax upon the media which, by definition, weakens it and does not strengthen it.
I know it is not the intention of this Bill, but the Minister will know that governments are not very good at running the media or even influencing it. There is always a tension between government and the media, and that tension is not a bad thing. It is sometimes awkward for government, but it is not a bad thing, in that it is the tension that often exists between these two estates that serves the purposes of democracy. Therefore it is good that there should be a Chinese wall between the state and the media.
There are things the Government can do, of course. Better literacy levels, education and higher standards of living will create media needs, and the media will respond to those dynamic influences in society. There are, of course, many existing funds, the IDC and others, that can help with the other objectives of the Bill that are expressed. So it is not as if there is no machinery or apparatus available to meet many of the laudable objectives which the Bill sets out.
Perhaps the state can help to finance the private sector and also help to …
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr A E van Niekerk): Hon Durr, your time has expired.
Mr K D S DURR: It is with regret that we oppose the Bill.
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, this Bill proposes to set up an agency called the Media Development and Diversity Agency. This agency will be governed by a board comprising nine members, three of whom will be directly appointed by the President. The remaining six will be appointed by the President on the recommendation of the National Assembly.
Persons who are office-bearers or employees of any party, movement or
organisation of a party-political nature are disqualified from being
members of this board. The problem is that office-bearer'', employee’’
and party-political nature'' are not adequately defined in the Bill. Is a
person who receives an honorarium from a political party employed by that
party? Does a body like Cosatu fall within the definition of party-
political nature’’?
The Bill deals only with present employees and office-bearers of political parties. There is, with respect, a fundamental difference between an office- bearer resigning from a position five years before the nomination and one doing so the day before the nomination. The failure to deal with these issues leaves the possibility open for the board to develop into a body with political bias.
The question of where and how the agency will be financed needs more consideration. Point 4 of the memorandum to the Bill states that the Government’s contribution will be covered by existing allocations to departments within the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. This probably means the GCIS. What influence will this give the GCIS over the board? As my learned friend the hon Durr said, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Indeed, clause 15 of the Bill deals with the financing of the Media Development and Diversity Agency and provides that funds will be appropriated by Parliament. On the face of it, this may be at odds with what is set out in point 4 of the memorandum, at least in the short term. Funds may also be forthcoming from voluntary agreements with organisations in the private sector as well as from grants and the proceeds of investments.
The amounts bandied about in the committee to allow for the establishment of the agency and to allow it to achieve its objectives over the next five years is in the order of R250 million. What proportion will be provided by Government and what proportion will be provided by the private sector, essentially the media industry?
In terms of clause 3(b), the Bill requires the agency to liaise with Icasa. This is not good enough. Icasa plays a role that is defined by section 192 of our Constitution. In our view the relationship between Icasa and the agency needed to be spelled out exhaustively. While the Bill provides for the evaluation of projects receiving support, it places no obligation on the beneficiaries to keep financial records or the standard to which such records are to be kept. With regard to the fact that at least a portion of the amounts to be utilised will be from public funds, this is a serious shortcoming. The Bill only provides that the agency’s financial statements, as opposed to the beneficiaries’, be audited by the Auditor-General.
The provision relating to the promulgation of regulations also reveals cause for concern. The board should have the power to regulate the activities of the agency as an independent body. It is our view that the Minister should merely promulgate such regulations and not play a role in defining the regulations in terms of which the agency is run.
Media diversity is a positive aspiration. However, for the reasons already set out, the DA cannot support the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr M J BHENGU: Chairperson, the IFP supports the development of media diversity and the empowerment, in this regard, of the previously disadvantaged. In essence, no party representing persons who were excluded from the mainstream of social and economic activity for so many decades, indeed since the advert of colonisation, could object to the purported objectives of this Bill, but it is a reality all over the world that when governments move into the terrain of the media, alarm bells start ringing. A free press is essential in any country calling itself a democracy.
In this Bill a public-private partnership is being proposed to assist in the development of print and electronic media and enable new entrants into this industry. As in all democracies, it is the duty of citizens to be vigilant and to defend democracy. It is certainly the role of the opposition to effect oversight and accountability, and in this regard we all have a duty to ensure that our press develops independently of the rich and manipulative tentacles of any political group or political power itself.
Yes, we have a duty to enable access to those wishing to contribute and to those who can bring fresh, new, vibrant and independent insights into our national discourse. South Africans need to be reflected and see themselves through new eyes and minds, but those minds must be free to roam wherever they choose.
We support this Bill, but our concerns are real. It is essential that the agency’s work be open and transparent to all. [Applause.]
Mr Z S KOLWENI: Chairperson, hon Minister, my colleagues, I think I must first express our disappointment to learn that the New NP is, all of a sudden, not supporting the Bill. We are disgusted, because in the course of finalising the Bill we went through it clause by clause. The hon member the doctor was there, diagnosing it together with us, and he, of course, mentioned some concerns which were taken care of, in a way. But we were under the impression that they were supporting the Bill. Nevertheless, we have to learn a lesson from this. [Interjections.]
The promotion and extension of a platform of freedom of speech to previously marginalised and disadvantaged communities is a milestone, for this embraces one of the pillars among the objectives characterising our Freedom Charter - that is, to liberate the African majority in particular, and the black people in general.
Our rural masses in ghettos, farming communities and elsewhere have been thirsty for this moment. As I stand here, they are asking me to remind this audience that, from time immemorial, they have demonstrated a high degree of media potential. In fact, long before the powerful Western-style media concept was introduced, our indigenous people championed our African heritage media diversity. Perhaps I need to remind those hon members who are confined to the Western concept of media about this history.
From the primitive society of centuries ago to the present day, our people have been able to compose music and construct a chorus. I am talking of a melody - a tune married to a wonderful African rhythm. In the event of an unbecoming incident experienced by society, they would suddenly compose a propagating chorus that could be sung by the entire community, and the message in that music and tune would normally expose the individual who had either violated society’s moral values or committed a crime. That was the trend, irrespective of the status of the individual in question.
We must remember that that indigenous type of media campaign had an inherent degree of community awareness, discipline and education. It was a wake-up call to whoever might fall into the same trap in future.
Yet, it is evident that our marginalised African majority is by nature a God-given media engine, because we have praise singers that have the capacity to draw the attention of an audience of over 10 000 in a public place within a minute, even without using the services of either a marshal or an usher to keep order.
Given that the media methods and types I have just characterised were never supported and institutionalised in a Western style of doing things, today our democratic Government is recognising the need to respond to previously disadvantaged communities. In this transformation process one would encourage the targeted communities to embrace the implementation in a dignified and constructive manner, so as to build the future of our communities.
I am saying this because we continue to experience malicious media coverage on a daily basis, with our media often distorting Government’s positive achievements. For instance, just last week, in my province, the North West, a certain journalist decided to take shortcuts when he/she was supposed to have driven to a goat site project. For the sake of making a report, that person decided to embarrass our Minister of local government in the news headlines.
For the communities to benefit, we believe that the infrastructural development will give us inspiration. Some other initiatives that have been pioneered by the community radio will need to be supported. I refer to initiatives like focusing on community development issues, following up on Letsema campaign activities and keeping communities informed of service delivery trends on an oversight basis.
Finally, I hope the agency will understand that it will have to place at the top of its list of priorities the national issue of HIV/Aids. The ANC supports this Bill. [Applause.]
The MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY: Chairperson, let me take this opportunity to thank all those who participated in this debate, including those who are not going to vote for the Bill. I thank them for not voting for it. I am glad I spoke after the hon Mr Kolweni, because for a minute I thought he was actually going to compose and sing a song for the hon Dr Nel. [Laughter.] But he was like the journalist who got lost somewhere on the road.
With the permission of the Chairperson I would just like to respond to what some of the speakers have said. I thought Dr Nel made a very good diagnosis of the Bill in front of us, but I am afraid he is a bad doctor because his prescription is a very bad one. I am assuming he himself did not understand what he was diagnosing, because, if he had understood it, he would have supported this Bill.
It seems to me that the opposition to the Bill stems from one fundamental feature, and that is that the board itself will not be independent. Now I wonder whether this fear comes from an understanding of the Bill - I think if they read it properly they would not say that - or whether it comes from something else. That something else is a deep-seated suspicion that anything that the ANC-led Government does must by its nature have something funny in it. If one cannot see it with one’s eyes, one must have that suspicion at the back of one’s mind. I do not believe we can proceed like this.
I said when I introduced the Bill that if the Government had so chosen, we could have set up the Media Development and Diversity Agency with our own funds. Indeed, as I have said, the bulk of the funding is going to come from the Government anyway. But we chose to go another route precisely to move away from the position where the Government would set up an agency fully funded and run it. We would then have had the difficulty of the Government being directly involved in all of these things.
We are therefore setting up an independent board, and hon members must finish reading the Bill in this regard, because when the President appoints three people, he is going to appoint two of them from the commercial sector. Now, I do not know how much further those hon members want us to go with respect to do this. The independence of the board, as I tried to argue, is not just derived from the membership of the board, but is derived from what they are supposed to do and what the Bill compels them to do, which is to act impartially.
We have tried to address the question of ensuring, to the best of our ability, that there will not be party-political interference. The fact that hon members sit here in this House is political, so everything we do is political in this country. We want to ensure that there is no party- political interference, that the MDDA does not become an ANC agency. Mr Kolweni has a lot of praise singers singing praises for him and the ANC, and I doubt whether the ANC needs more praise singers.
If people are genuine and really serious about wanting a diversified media agency, they will support the Bill. But I have my doubts about whether some of the parties represented here are serious about wanting to extend the frontiers of not only being able to receive information, but also being able to impart it to the masses of our people. If I were Mr Lever, following what we heard this afternoon in the motion from Mr Ackermann, I gravely doubt whether I would talk about honorariums and about he who pays the piper calling the tune. If I were he, I would be very careful about what I said, given the motion moved this afternoon by Mr Ackermann.
It was Mr Durr who raised this and then the other hon member supported him, and I do not know why. If that is the case, then members must ask themselves which of the print media do not rely practically wholly for profitability on advertising. There is not a single member of the print media in the country that can survive purely on the basis of circulation. So he who pays the piper in this case is the private sector and the Government. We do a lot of advertising in the print media.
I regret very much that there are several parties - three, by my count - that have not found it in themselves to support this very important piece of legislation. My only hope is that they will soon learn that they made a mistake and will come back to the House and say: ``We are terribly sorry, we should have voted for the Bill in the first place, but now that we are a bit wiser, we will come back and say that we agree; it is a good Bill’’. I thank the Council once again for its attention. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (New National Party, African Christian Democratic Party and Democratic Party dissenting.)
APPROPRIATION BILL
(Policy debate)
Vote No 2 - Parliament:
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Chairperson, this is an important step by the National Council of Provinces. In the two years that we have been in this House we did not debate the Vote of Parliament, but we are now doing our democratic and constitutional duty and reviewing our own performance in the past financial year. I think it is an important step which we have to make part of our parliamentary practice.
I am sure hon members have looked at the various submissions, the excellent documentation provided by the Treasury and the Department of Finance, and have noted that in the financial year whose finances are one debating, Parliament was provided an allocation of R422,6 million for its utilisation. The Parliamentary services component of that allocation, which is what we would often focus upon, was R268 million. It was utilised in a number of areas of expenditure, the bulk going to the office of the Secretary to Parliament and a large proportion, R62 million, being put towards facilities for members of Parliament.
The new framework of financial accountability that we are using in our country provides us, I believe, with a useful set of criteria for assessing and monitoring South African public institutions and their use of public finances. We have in our country a piece of legislation we took very seriously when considering it in the National Council of Provinces, the Public Finance Management Act.
Unfortunately for ourselves as Parliament, the Act does not regulate our utilisation of public finances. We do not fall within the ambit of those institutions addressed by the Public Finance Management Act. Happily, we are taking steps to remedy this omission. The current law which regulates our use of public finances is found in fragmented pieces of legislation such as certain aspects of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act and the older Exchequer Act. But, as I have indicated, we are regulating this current situation and will be rectifying the gap that exists at the moment so that as Parliament we fall, in future, within the framework that all public institutions are governed within to ensure that we are as responsive as we are demanding other institutions to be.
We have resolved that there must be a visible and public set of criteria which impact on ourselves as Parliament and, perhaps more importantly, which also introduce accountability and transparency to the legislatures throughout the nation - in our provincial legislatures as well as here in Parliament. In the last financial year we have devoted some time to reviewing the budgeting process utilised to arrive at the funds for Parliament and we have also begun to discuss how we ensure that the funds we have voted are used within the terms of the constitutional mandate of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.
I think if we go through a brief review of our actions in the last financial year, we will get a useful and perhaps telling set of information about ourselves and our performance. In the last calendar year, which incorporates the last financial year, we considered over 69 pieces of legislation. A number of these were section 76 Bills. I believe 13 were section 76 Bills. For each of the 13 we held meetings and public hearings in the nine provincial legislatures of South Africa. That involved a great deal of work for permanent delegates of the National Council of Provinces.
In the weeks of session that we had in 2001, more than 20 meetings were held in provincial legislatures led by members who are permanent delegates within the National Council of Provinces. We briefed committees at the provincial level. Permanent delegates tabled questions for oral reply as well as questions for written reply and participated in a number of joint meetings and public hearings with the National Assembly portfolio committees.
In an effort to improve the National Council of Provinces’ co-ordination and responsiveness to provinces and our mandate from within the Constitution, the presiding officers of the National Council of Provinces held very useful meetings with presiding officers and business committees in the Eastern Cape province, the Mpumalanga province and the provincial legislature of KwaZulu-Natal. Through these interactions we began to get a much truer sense of the nature of our relationship and interaction with provincial legislatures and the degree to which we were providing sufficient liaison and co-ordination to ensure that indeed the National Council of Provinces becomes a forum for the presentation of provincial interests.
Arising from the interaction with provincial legislatures a policy workshop on the further development of the National Council of Provinces was held in 2001, and the results of that workshop will inform much of our work in this financial year and the years ahead.
There is therefore a great deal of activity and there has been in the past year a great deal of progress. We have also as Parliament achieved a great deal of noteworthy progress with both our Houses working together on several important initiatives. A number of these initiatives have been at a significant cost to Parliament - sadly, often an unanticipated cost due, in my view, to our inadequate and often unco-ordinated budgeting processes.
One of the elements where we have seen a great deal of activity is Parliament’s increasing role in international bodies. Of note is the election last year of Ms Gwen Mahlangu to the position of chair of the women’s co-ordinating committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which also entails an ex officio seat in the IPU executive. Of note as well was the election of the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly to the finance committee of the IPU and the important role played by many of our public representatives in IPU conferences, in leading standing committee meetings and the leading roles they played within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
Members would be aware that the Chairperson of the NCOP is one of the six representatives of Africa on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association executive and that this has led to her playing a role in various seminars, postelection training workshops and other activities of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. [Applause.]
Our Parliament this year also hosted the important Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Indian Ocean Rim Media and Parliament conference, a conference that has led to the development of an interesting code for future relations between parliaments in the Commonwealth and media within the Commonwealth. I am sure all of us, given the debate we have just heard today, are committed as members of Parliament to ensuring that in our democracy, while we certainly have the duty of creating a diverse media, freedom of expression exists and continues to thrive.
The CPA Indian Ocean Rim Media Conference had as one of its objectives ensuring that parliaments do indeed actively seek to support the putting in place of a thriving, free and active media. Members will also be aware that whenever the United Nations holds a world conference, the Inter- Parliamentary Union usually sets about convening a meeting of parliamentarians to deliberate on substantive issues arising from the world conference agenda and to prepare a parliamentary contribution to the deliberations and outcomes.
In the year 2001, our Parliament led the parliamentary meeting on the occasion of the World Conference against Racism. I noted with great interest that our Parliament made an important contribution to the success of the World Conference against Racism as well as members’ contributions during the parliamentarians’ meeting. The meeting of parliamentarians adopted the resolution that was then presented to the plenary of the World Conference against Racism by Speaker Ginwala, the Speaker of the National Assembly.
In this financial year, our Parliament and the IPU will jointly host a meeting of parliamentarians to coincide with the World Summit on Sustainable Development, which South Africa is hosting this year. We are very unusual in having the fortune to host world conferences of the United Nations in two consecutive years. It is most unusual. I do not think the occasion will be repeated in the years to come, so I hope we will make full use of the opportunities provided by our hosting these very important conferences and that all members will ensure that we are informed on the issues related to sustainable development and how we make a contribution to ensuring that we play a role in shaping the content of the resolution that will emerge from the world conference as well as parliamentary activity that must be a direct result of the conference to which we will make a contribution.
Equally noteworthy in this last financial year was the joint parliamentary assembly of the ACP-EU representatives that was hosted by our Parliament. The assembly was a major undertaking that tested the resolve of the presiding officers, the Secretary to Parliament, his staff and our own members of Parliament. I think we have to congratulate the staff of Parliament and the Secretary on having managed this immense project so successfully. [Applause.]
I watched our Secretary with great interest during that conference and I was quite astounded at his ability to juggle so many different sets of demands in his two hands. I wondered whether he had grown other hands and was utilising them just for that occasion. Certainly our staff played a sterling role and made a major contribution to a very successful conference.
Having said that, however, we have to say that while budgeting, for a number of these events we have failed to ensure that we provide projections for the hosting of such events in our budget. We have known for a number of years, for example, that we as a country will host the World Summit on Sustainable Development, but we did not anticipate that there would be a parliamentarians’ meeting. Therefore we did not provide, as part of our submission to Treasury, a funding request for Parliament to participate actively in such an event.
I believe it is imperative, as we budget, that we recognise and provide for the increasing international role that South Africa’s Parliament is having to play.
Our growing international activity has not led to a neglect of our own commitment to strengthening ties with Africa. As we speak about UN world conferences, we might imagine that we do not have interaction on our continent. Happily we do. At the parliamentary level, our members of Parliament continue to serve on the SADC Parliamentary Forum executive committee.
This year our Deputy Chairperson led our delegation to the plenary meeting in Namibia. Our Deputy Chairperson has also played a very important and useful role in assisting parliamentarians in Burundi to consider adjustments to their constitution so that it allows for the new democracy that they are trying to build in a nonconflictual environment. We really congratulate our Deputy presiding officers on the role that they have played there. [Applause.] Ms Ntlabati, as members would be aware, continues to serve as one our three representatives on the executive committee of the SADC Parliamentary Forum.
In the year 2001 both the presiding officers of Parliament and members of Parliament attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s Africa conference in Nigeria - a democratic and free Nigeria. We presented papers on disaster management, on regional trade policy and on strategies for addressing poverty. In addition, South Africa led a briefing discussion on the Pan-African Parliament protocol, which was welcomed by the African Parliaments present at that meeting.
We have continued to build on these links and are planning a meeting of parliamentarians in June this year, to precede the African Union launch meeting that South Africa will host in July. Parliament has devoted time to full and careful consideration of the African Union and Pan African Parliament protocols in pursuit of the objective of ensuring that African parliaments play an effective and full role in giving life to the African Union and the Pan African Parliament. All these activities, and many others to which I cannot refer for reasons of time, point to a very active and engaged Parliament. The core issue that we must address is: Are we planning effectively, and are the people of our country receiving value for money from their public representatives? A review of Parliament-based work and province-based activity suggests that there is value for money, yet close scrutiny of our budget process and planning indicates a serious need to improve performance. Sometimes we acted without a clear set of plans. We now have sufficient experience, in our view, to inform our financial planning, and we need to improve our budget process so that there is greater certainty that we are making decisions that have a clear and defensible rationale.
In addition to this more focused and informed budget would have to be the inclusion of aspects of our work that are not fully funded at this time. In my view, our committees require improved support: full research support, high-level managerial support and assistance in setting out strategies and work plans. Our committees have done well in their role of considering legislation, but, in my view, we rely too much on intuitive feel, rather than on the investigation of potential outcome and impact. Eight years should certainly lead to improved practice and to fewer untidy amendments and omissions.
Too many of the pieces of legislation that come before our Parliament are Bills that are amending legislation that we have passed. This means that the intuitive feel that we currently utilise has to be put aside for a more informed assessment of Bills that we consider so that we pass legislation that does not require amendment the following year, but is able to withstand the test of time and practice, in order to stand as a full piece of law that we have considered fully and passed with clear consideration.
Another area requiring attention is our contribution to public participation. We played an important part in supporting and encouraging public participation in the first Parliament, particularly as we wrote the new Constitution. We have to ask now: To what degree are the people of South Africa enjoying opportunities to shape the thinking of their Parliament? We all need to review this area of our work and devise responses that ensure that all South Africans contribute to shaping our democracy.
The various committees that have carried out oversight visits in the past financial year have to be congratulated. We must congratulate hon members on the last province week, in which I understand a full set of consultations and interactions occurred. This is the kind of work that we must do. However, in addition to visiting public institutions, I believe that we should also consider holding people’s hearings as part of any committee programme, so that the direct experience of South Africans shapes our responses and our planning. Undertaking such work will require financial resources, and therefore our plans for 2003-04 must provide for this.
Parliament has not been able, in this financial year, to secure all the funds that it has felt it needs. This poses difficult challenges for our operations in this financial year. I hope hon members, who essentially shape the budget, will bear with us as we face the difficulties that arise from not receiving the full budget that we sought.
Our budget committee needs to carefully monitor our progress in this year and ensure that it clearly identifies where the areas of need lie and that it is able to provide full and proper motivation for whatever submission it makes to the national Treasury. We need to record far more carefully any gaps and lapses in our funding provisions in order that, for 2003-04, we make a submission that will ensure that Parliament has the Vote that allows it to play its proper role. [Applause.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE NCOP: Chairperson, it is indeed a privilege to follow upon the presiding officer. One should carefully consider the role of the presiding officers when one debates the Vote on Parliament, given the fact that the leadership of any institution really determines its course and outcomes. I am not here today as a praise singer, but merely to draw the hon members’ attention to the fact that we can be justly proud of our presiding officers. If I had the attention of the DP in this very important debate, I do believe that we would be able to progress as an institution. [Interjections.]
Given the fact that there is attention from some members of some political parties and less attention from other members of other political parties because of more compelling and pressing political difficulties that they encounter, I shall proceed where I left off and say that one has to recognise and note with a great sense of pride the role played by our presiding officers, not only in the NCOP, but in the National Assembly as well Parliament as a whole.
Given the fact that we are now in the NCOP, it is important to recognise the specific or particular role played by the Chairperson of the NCOP, particularly in terms of enhancing and promoting gender issues. If I were to list some of the organisations to which our Chairperson belongs, then one would have a clear indication of the sense of commitment over a very long and sustained period in this regard.
Our Chairperson is a member of the National Network on Violence Against Women, the English Academy of South Africa, the International Women’s Forum and the SA Association of Women Graduates. We are all aware of the various undertakings that she has made in order to promote gender equality and improve the lot of women. She also serves in other very important fora, amongst which are the following. She is joint president of the Inter- Parliamentary Union branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, an African regional representative and executive committee member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and a joint sponsor of the Parliamentary Millennium Project.
We are also aware - and this House has passed a resolution in this regard - passed in terms of the commitment that our Chairperson has to education, particularly tertiary education. We passed a resolution with a great deal of pride in recognition of her services in the tertiary field when she was appointed as a chancellor in the Western Cape. I do not want to exhaust my time giving accolades to our presiding officers, but I merely wished to note the significant role that they have played in this particular arena.
I believe that when we look at this Budget Vote we have to locate the NCOP in the parliamentary and legislative landscape of South Africa. We are inextricably bound to the National Assembly and cannot pretend that our activities are not part of and should not work in tandem with those of the National Assembly. Similarly, we cannot ignore the fact that we are here in this House as indirectly elected representatives of the various legislatures in our country. Consequently, we have a particular role and responsibility in our interaction with the provinces.
We also cannot ignore the fact that we have a particular responsibility in interacting very closely with local government. We have Salga, which, in terms of the Constitution, has to play a role in Parliament and we have the various provincial associations with which we must interact. I do believe that the delegations from the various provinces have a particular responsibility in ensuring that there is a nexus and dynamic interaction with provincial associations. That is but one part of the spectrum.
We also have a particular responsibility in promoting and enhancing co- operative governance. It is a constitutional responsibility. In addition, we have the responsibility of ensuring that we foster good intergovernmental relations. That is another responsibility. If one looks at the broad dimension of our activities in terms of the constitutional obligations and the general obligations, one certainly has to recognise that the capacity that is provided for members in the NCOP is somewhat limited.
When we talk about a committee in the NCOP, we do not talk about a committee that deals with one portfolio. Ours are cluster committees, select committees that deal with various aspects in the legislative process. Yet we find it very difficult to accept that the allocation of resources in terms of committee work differs between the NA and NCOP. We understand that the NA, notwithstanding the fact that each NA committee is responsible for only one portfolio, has the greater allocation in terms of committee funds than that of the NCOP. [Applause.]
It is significant that we raise this because, besides doing the work that we do within Parliament, we have a particular responsibility to provinces. The Chairperson quite correctly pointed out the responsibility of members of the committees to go out to the provinces and brief them and be involved in the process of negotiating final mandates. That is a dimension which certainly involves costs and resources. I believe that it is a matter that we will have to deal with very closely.
Having identified this landscape here, one should ask: What are the challenges that we face as the NCOP? I am glad that Mr Kolweni spoke about a visit to the rural hinterland of Kgalagadi. We went as a combined multiparty delegation to enquire about what was going on in the rural and urban nodes identified by the President. This process was undertaken by nine delegations in nine provinces at the same time. The outcome of it was quite interesting. For example, we were able to verify that the journalist who suggested that this particular development was a fabrication was indeed wrong. He certainly did not make the effort to go out to the rural hinterland where this project was being undertaken to interview and interact with the people.
We can come back with a great deal of pride to say that we now know about ``die boerbok.’’ Now we know that there are African women who were previously marginalised and were on the periphery of the economy who are actively engaged in developing and growing the economy in their particular areas.
We can also say that there are challenges that we have identified as a result of our visit - challenges in terms of cross-boundary municipalities, co-ordination between district councils and local government and corelationships at a horizontal level between one province and other. In fact, we will have to look again at the issue of cross-boundary municipalities. I think we have a responsibility, notwithstanding our party- political affiliation, to raise this matter from a provincial perspective.
It is for this reason that we are encouraging our members to support the view that the next provincial week should be dedicated to local government, because amongst the responsibilities that we undertook during this week we reached out to local government. We went out to district councils where we did briefings on matters that affected them, such as national disaster management and crossing of the floor, because local government councillors are affected by that.
The great degree of enthusiasm with which we were received and the consciousness of the various councillors on their part in relation to legislation that is being passed were quite amazing and astounding. For example, they wanted to know, and they had views about, the frequency with which the crossing over should take place. They were concerned about the fact that there was a distinction between ward councillors and proportionally representative councillors. They wanted to know, for example, what the position would be if a member of a party crossed to the other side where no such party existed but was a registered party. Important questions were asked, meaning that there is a need to bring the legislative process to local government.
In that context I would like to say that we have commenced and we can say with pride that the NCOP has piloted the move towards using IT for the benefit of efficient governance. Today we can say with pride that the NCOP can interact with its provinces electronically through computers. It is a seamless and efficient process. One should then say: Should it not happen, or should we not extend and expand this process so that we can interact with local government as well in order to become more efficient and effective?
I could speak for hours and hours on this particular aspect. As I stand here, I take pride not only in the leadership provided by the presiding officers, but in the chairpersons and in each and every member of this Council, irrespective of party-political affiliation. I think the difference between this House and the other House is that we somewhat depoliticise our commitment to transformation and service delivery. It is a collective interest and we look at the common good.
I think that by ensuring that we continue on this course we will create a bond between the national Parliament and provincial legislatures. We will assimilate local government into this very important task and thereby fulfil the important role that we were mandated to play in terms of the Constitution.
The areas of budget and members’ interests will be dealt with by colleagues who will speak later. [Applause.]
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr A E VAN NIEKERK): I just, for clarity’s sake, want to state that when the hon Surty referred to the ``boerbok’’, he was not referring to me but to an animal. [Laughter.]
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I want to thank the hon Surty, who just sat down, for his good offices this year, for his many interventions, for his help, kindness and consideration, also to us in the smaller parties. I want to thank him for that in the smooth functioning of Parliament.
Though Madam Chairperson and I have different political persuasions, I have to say that she brought great respect and gravitas to this institution, both here and in her travels abroad. We as members wish to thank her for that.
One of our duties as parliamentarians is, of course, to uphold that very dignity and to respect our parliamentary institutions. Judgments fairly and unfairly are being made about how we behave and how we have been found wanting. Parliament needs to inculcate a sense of servant leadership and to reflect wise custodianship of our resources and natural interests and the enhancement of sound social and political values. Indeed, we are establishing not only new laws, but, in this fledging Parliament, new conventions and new patterns of behaviour. The question, of course, in the words of our Chairperson, is: Are we providing value for money?
I want to address the House on something that disturbs me, and it has to do with the pattern of lobbying that is getting out of proportion in this Place. Every other budget cannot be a cause for celebration. Every other state board or body entertains us like princes - which we are not - with fine music, orchestras, jazz concerts, fine wines and tables groaning with expensive food, paid for by others. It is a subtle form of corruption. We really need to distinguish between wise stewardship and waste, between reasonable socialisation and self-indulgence at the expense of others, between information and the need therefor, and entertainment. Private companies like Vodacom, which struck a deal in the DRC, have the excuse for a planeload of MPs to go and celebrate the event in Kinshasa at huge expense. Somebody has to pay somewhere.
Some overseas parliamentary visits are not in the public interest and achieve very little at huge expense. This is a poor country. I am not pleading for a Spartan institution, nor am I making judgments on anyone - and I include myself in this. But I plead for a sense of proportion.
We see the same trends in provincial governments and municipalities. We see mayors throwing huge parties at public expense to welcome themselves. It is nothing. It is nice if a friend would just throw one such a party. The excuse is then: Someone in the private sector is paying. We all know there is no such thing as a free lunch.
When I was in the UK, I often had to attend parliamentary events, often with the Prime Minister in 10 Downing Street. All I got was a glass of wine or juice and some cheese if I was lucky. I found in my travels around the world, in the 72 countries I have had the honour of serving and visiting and trading in, that the richer the country, the more austere the catering arrangements.
I call upon this House and chairpersons of committees to reflect upon what I have said, so that we do introduce a sense of proportion. It gives us the wrong impression. We are all overweight and we do not need it. We need to look at this. [Applause.]
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Mr A E Van Niekerk): Maybe we are not all overweight.
Ms C S BOTHA: Chairperson, when I looked up and saw you in the Chair I wondered for a moment if the crossing-the-floor process had already begun.
I have appreciation for the efforts which the women in both Houses have put into obtaining an adequate budget for the operation of our workplace and I want to thank them for that as well as for the lustre which they add to Parliament.
I do not want to concentrate on mere percentage increases in this particular Vote, or how this relates to inflation. Nor do I want to comment on the political aspects of the stature that is accorded, or not, to this Parliament by the present Government - not necessarily through the budget, but rather through its approach to Parliament’s role and the importance of it in the national psyche.
What I want to look at, as an ordinary member of Parliament, is how the money is spent here. I will look at how the appearance and operation of Parliament strike me as a member and how it is perceived through the eyes of visitors. I must say that if my observations were more pleasing, it would be easier to defend increases in the budget than when the overall impression is one of quite a bit of neglect and a lack of proper management.
I am completely unmoved by the much-heralded and enormously expensive security system that we have installed. I feel no more nor any less secure now than I did when I arrived here. I never did feel the need for millions of rand to be spent on the security of members, when our constituents cannot lay claim to any such protection - despite the fact that they are in much more need of protection than we are.
What really bugs me is that these facilities have not been properly completed and do not always work. I could not believe my eyes or my ears when I asked why the side entrance to the Marks Building is not in constant use, despite the fact that it is the side which has to be used by disabled members. The answer was that we do not have enough police officers to man both that entrance and the Parliament Street entrance. Why then did we erect expensive security measures at these entrances? As for the vehicle entrance through Parliament Street, this seems to be opened or closed at whim, but certainly not according to a detectable pattern.
The overall appearance of Parliament is also cause for concern. It is marred by discarded cigarette butts and dirty walls and floors. As a matter of fact, an air of general neglect and lack of management pervades the look of Parliament. It does not present the proud face which I want to show visitors. The management of the establishment clearly needs a bit of an overhaul.
On a personal level, but I am not only speaking for myself, I want to raise the issue of the replacement of computers which were stolen. This has now been the subject of correspondence between me and the Secretary to Parliament for more than a year, and we live opposite each other - on one street. At my last enquiry, I was asked to resubmit my claims as the correspondence had been mislaid. Hopefully this is an exception rather than the rule.
I would also have liked a reallocation of money to improve communication between the legislatures and the NCOP. Our contact with the provinces and our provincial visits are, I feel, totally inadequate. We spend money on duplicating National Assembly briefings, but committees do not have sufficient funds to do their oversight work in the provinces. This is leaving the second House with something like an identity crisis.
Having a new House with functional translation services is very good and well and I am happy for it, but who believes that sitting as provinces has actually led - and I mean sitting as we do here - to a provincial point of view being expressed in the House? I think this would be much more likely to happen if we were able to spend money on visiting provinces as teams - this was highlighted by the hon Surty - and coming back to report on our shared experiences.
I want to refer again to the crossing-the-floor clause in which we as members of the NCOP are caught up without any real voice as to our destiny. I want to put my party’s position: Crossing must take place with all the privileges of the seat intact. In other words, if a member joins another party, the political funding which this Vote controls and which is allocated to members by Parliament must move with him or her. Funding has been allocated to parties according to the number of members, and we feel that this must remain the criterion.
On that joyful note, working out how much richer we are going to be after June, I thank you.
Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, I wish to say at the outset that I fully support the Chief Whip, Mr Surty, when he states that there can be no justification. I also believe there can be no justification for portfolio committees of the National Assembly getting more budgetary allocations than select committees which deal with a cluster of departments. That is certainly something that needs urgent attention.
I also agree with Mr Durr that there is room for some frugality at certain functions and so on, and that maybe we should rather look at what is really required by some of our members. As has been pointed out, there is still room for improvement in capacity of members as far as research is concerned, etc.
In this House we must continue to be informed by the perspective which guided us when we drafted the Constitution which gave birth to the NCOP. Two of the most important principles which were part of that perspective were participatory democracy on the one hand, and co-operative governance on the other.
In the words of President Mbeki at the NCOP national conference, during 1998, the vision of which the NCOP is an expression is fundamental to the success of the new democracy which we sought to fashion. This is sometimes forgotten by the critics of this institution, because if we fail, our democracy, as it was envisaged by those of us who were part of the Constitution-process and of the new dispensation in this country, will also fail.
Of course, there have been difficulties and misunderstandings, which is not surprising because the NCOP is new and its processes are complicated and it is still a work in progress. But as the refurbishment and the renewal of our Chamber are progressing well - when I peeped in there yesterday I saw that - so is our institution. This is confirmed in the excellent and well- researched new book by Prof Christina Murray and Lia Nijzink, the reading of which, by the way, I recommend to all members.
It is stated in this book that the NCOP is beginning to demonstrate that it can realise the vision of the Constitution-makers and contribute in a meaningful way to the process of deepening representative democracy in South Africa, and that the NCOP has made enormous progress in the six years since it was established. Most importantly, they have found that most delegates show a clear grasp of the NCOP’s role and goals, and they are aware of its procedures and reasons for provincial involvement in the national sphere of Government.
I sometimes think that our role is often misunderstood. Yes, maybe because the processes are complicated, but I also think sometimes some of our critics really do not understand and do not have a grasp of the processes and what this House really stands for. Because this is not just another second House. It is not a continuation of the old Senate by another name. It is, in fact, a unique institution and not like any other second House anywhere in the world.
The role of the NCOP must be seen in the context of a constitutional commitment to co-operative government, which means that national policy must be sensitive to local and provincial needs and concerns, and must not ignore or ride roughshod over them. It also means that municipalities, and particularly provinces, should not act in isolation but that they must be deeply integrated in the national political process.
Our House is designed for this to happen and, as the Chief Whip has also indicated, there is really a keen interest and almost a hunger that we have experienced on the ground - in the municipalities and in the provinces - for more involvement. It is clearly set out in the Constitution that our main function is to participate in the national law-making process and to provide a national forum for public debate of provincial issues. Many provincial legislatures do excellent work in properly considering section 76 legislation and in coming up with proposals to make amendments, which we can then deliberate upon here and which are successful in many instances. But where there is a lot of room for improvement, and what I find lacking is proactive actions from the provinces, to initiate, for instance, legislative proposals which can come through to the national level, to feed the permanent delegates with questions which they would like answers to or specifically to put motions here on behalf of the provinces. I find that there is really a lack of that proactiveness coming from the provinces, and I believe that we should do whatever we can to get them to do this.
In this regard it was encouraging, I must say, to note yesterday in a workshop of the committee that I chair, how many provincial members of Parliament were interested, how enthusiastic they were about it and the keen interest shown by them. From the province that I come from, KwaZulu- Natal, there were no less than 10 members of Parliament present.
There can be no doubt that the one aspect I really want to address also is the state of the nation address by our President at the beginning of the year which we all sat and listened to, in which there were so many very important issues and matters raised by the President which were of importance to the provinces and to us as a House. But then that was only to find that we were excluded from debating there and, that if we wanted to participate in that most important debate which sets the tone for the year, we had to sit in the gallery of that House and watch as spectators. But we cannot participate. I can find no justification or reason for that. I really want to plead that this should be looked at again.
The address by the President, however important it is later in the year, I believe cannot replace our participation in that debate at the beginning of the year.
As the President said in the opening address this year:
Of decisive importance to the millions of our people and the future of our country, as we meet here today, the central question we will have to answer at the end of the day is whether what we are doing as the legislature …
The was addressing us as well -
… the executive and the judiciary, as well as the fourth estate, is helping to lift from the shoulders of our people the intolerable burden of poverty and underdevelopment.
Certainly, poverty and underdevelopment in our provinces and in the rural areas are of utmost importance to us as provincial representatives. He said: ``This fourth opening session of our second democratic Parliament, including the debate that will take place next week, must answer this question in a frank, honest and forthright manner. But we are excluded from that. We are excluded from participating in that debate. Yet, we are the voice - we should be the voice - of the provinces and of our people in the provinces at national level. I therefore conclude by saying that we have come a long way. We have done exceptionally well and also so under the leadership of our Chairperson. I agree with every word that the Chief Whip has said. I really believe that we have excellent leadership in this House. However, I believe there is still a long road to travel. Our work is a work in progress. I believe that we have everything that there needs to be. We have the talent in this House to really deepen democracy in South Africa in the interests of all our people. [Applause.]
Ms B N DLULANE: Chairperson and hon members, the aim of this Vote, as mentioned in the Estimates of National Expenditure of 2002, is:
… to provide the support services required by Parliament to fulfil its constitutional functions, to assist political parties represented in Parliament to secure administrative support and service constituents, and to provide members of Parliament with the necessary facilities.
The Estimates of Expenditure identify specifically what members’ facilities ought to be, which is what input will focus on in respect of how the budget should assist MPs to fulfil their constitutional obligations.
Ngelishwa, ndifumanisa ukuba izinto ezininzi kwintetho ebendiza kuyenza sele uSomlono, kunye noMbexeshi oyiNtloko, bezichaphazele.
Kambe, ndiza kugqaba-gqabaza ndithethe ngalaa mba umalunga nemingeni. Ndibaxhasa ncakasana abantu ababini abazizithethi bekwangabakhokeli bale Ndlu, uMhlalingaphambili ohloniphekileyo uNaledi Pandor noMbexeshi oyiNtloko uTat’ uSurty. Ngaphandle kokuba babe ezi ngxaki esinazo bazibonile ngekuba abasikhokelanga kule Ndlu.
Ndiyitsho le nto ngenxa yokubona eminye yemingeni esinayo. Izolo oku sithi masiphume apha eKapa, sithi bhazalala phaya ebantwini, siyithabathe le Ndlu, siyise kanye phaya kubantu emakhaya. Bendisiva izolo oku kusithiwa sisakhangelelwa iimali zokukhangela ukuba ngenene singayenza na into yokuphumeza isigqibo esisisingathiswe yile Ndlu, yokuba sithabathe iPalamente siyise ebantwini.
Ndiyaphakamisa ndicela, njengelungu le-ANC, okokuba mayifakwe loo nto kuhlahlo lwabiwo-mali, kuba lo mbono ukhoyo kuMgaqo-siSeko mawungabiyonto ekhoyo nje kuphela, koko mawabelwe imali ukwenzela ukuba singathi xa sifuna ukuya ebantwini sihambe sicela, silindile.
Enye into endifuna ukuyibethelela, ngumba ophathelele kwiingxaki esinazo. Ngelishwa, xa ndibhekisa kumntakwethu kweliya cala ubaw’ uDurr, ndiva kabuhlungu yinto yokuba oorhulumente abagqithileyo esasingeyonxalenye yabo thina malungu e-ANC, babengenayo nakancinci into yokuzabela imali ii`Nodal points’. Akuzange kubekho mali injengaleyo. Uyakwazi kodwa ukhalazela eyokuba xa abantu begqiba kusebenza bafumane iti eshushu. Mhlawumbi kushiyana izithethe namasiko. Kufuneka sifundisane.
Singamalungu ePalamente, sinazo iingxaki ngokuphathelele kwizithuthi. Le yeminye yemingeni esijongene nayo. Ininzi imali ekhutshwa zezi ziNdlu ukuze kubhatalwe ooduladula abasigodusayo, siye kuphumla, sisiya kufunda emakhaya kodwa iimeko zabo azide zilunge. Mayijongwe loo nto.
Kwakhona, sinalo eli khwele lokuba mninzi umsebenzi owenziwa yile Ndlu ekuthi ke xa sijongelwa abantu abanobuchwepheshe ekuthiwa ngabaphandi sifumanise ukuba kungaba ngcono xa thina kule iNdlu sineqela leekomiti singenakomiti enye. Mhlawumbi singaba nabo nokuba babini abaphandi, angabi mnye kwiqela elinye. Ingasinceda loo nto xa inokwabelwa imali. Siyalibulela igalelo eselenziwe yile Ndlu kuba sezikho ezikhoyo, kambe azanelanga.
OoSomlomo kule Ndlu kunye nababhexeshi bamaphondo olithoba basengxakini kuba kwamanye amalungu babonakala, mhlawumbi, bengawenzi umsebenzi wabo. Mazilungiswe eziya ofisi zijongene nezinto zokuncedisana namalungu. Kukho ikomitana ekhoyo ebuya ize kwenza ingxelo kwintlanganisela yeekomiti ezikhoyo. Kambe ubani ufumanisa ukuba asiphumli ngamalungu anengxaki yokuba abaphathi, kweliya candelo leemfuno zamalungu ePalamente, abawaphathi kakuhle. Ziyathatyathwa izigqibo ngeli xesha ikomiti isaxoxa ze zisetyenziswe ngokungathi asikhokelwanga, asinazinkokeli kule Ndlu. Sithi siyayiphakamisa loo nto, sisithi mabahlukane nokugqibela iinkokeli eziphethe kule Ndlu, kuba sizifumana singoosiputsu abangenzi nto.
Iindawo zokuhlala zikhona. Ininzi imali ethi ikhutshwe ekubhataleni netsalwayo, nokuba incinci kuthi malungu, kodwa azicocekanga. Ukuba ngaba ke kufanele sithethe, siyile Ndlu, sithi nazo maziqwalaselwe, zabelwe imali. Amanye amalungu akule Ndlu ayalibala ukuba axhamla ngaphambili. Xa ngoku kukho izibonelelo ezithi zenzeke kunye notshintsho oluthi lwenzeke elizweni bayanxakama. Udade wethu apha, uNksz Botha, ubona xa kuzanywa kuphakanyiswa nento esingekayigqibi, esingekayixoxi kule Ndlu sele eyikhalazela. Makuhanjwe kuye kusetyenzwa ukwenzela ukuba sibagcine, bangaweli baye kwamanye amacala. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Ms B N DLULANE: Unfortunately, I find that Madam Speaker and the Chief Whip have mentioned many of the things I was going to talk about.
However, I am going to speak briefly about challenges with which we are faced. I fully support the two speakers who are also leaders of this House, the hon Chairperson, Mrs Naledi Pandor and the Chief Whip, Mr M E Surty. If they did not acknowledge the problems we are experiencing, they would not be leading us in this House.
I am saying this because I can see the kinds of challenges that face us. Just yesterday we were talking about going out to our constituencies in Cape Town to consult with people and take this House directly to the people. Yesterday I also heard that money was still being raised for us as a way of making sure that we could deliver on the task that this House has given us, that of taking this Parliament to the people.
I propose and, with due respect as a member of the ANC, ask that this undertaking be provided with a budget of its own, because this vision is provided for in the Constitution and so it must be seen to be practised and not end on paper. This would mean that when we have to go to our constituencies we do not first have to go around asking for money.
Another point I would like to emphasise relates to problems that we have. Unfortunately, when I refer to my brother Mr Durr over there, I feel bad, because the previous governments that we as the ANC were not members of, did not set aside a budget for nodal points. There were no such funds. Today he complains when people are served with tea when they have finished working. Perhaps we differ in the manner in which we do things. We should perhaps teach one another.
We as members of Parliament do have problems with regard to transport. We are faced with a number of such challenges. A lot of money is spent on paying the bus service that we use to take us home after work but they are not in good condition. That must be looked at.
Furthermore, we would like that when we are afforded an opportunity to work with researchers, we should rather work as a cluster, comprised of a number of committees. Perhaps two researchers would be appropriate for one cluster at a time. This could help during the allocation of the budget. We welcome the contribution made by this House in that regard, although there are not enough researchers.
The chairperson of this House together with the whips of the nine provinces are in trouble because they are not seen to be effective by other members. The offices that are meant to assist members should be put in order. There is a committee that gives report to the forum which is made up of all the other committees. However, one finds that we are pressured by members who experience problems because the officials that are supposed to attend to their problems do not treat them well. Decisions are taken while the committee is sitting discussing issues and are then implemented as if we do not have leadership in this House.
We would like that that matter to be taken up, and we also say they should stop the tendency of taking decisions for the leadership of this House because it is as if we are useless here and are expected to carry out decisions of which we were not a part.
There is enough accommodation. There is money that is paid for maintenance, even if it is just a little, but they are not clean. If we have to say anything about them as this House, then we say that they should be looked at, and a budget be set aside for them. Some members in this House have since forgotten that they enjoyed a number of privileges before. When services have to be provided for people and certain changes in the country have to be implemented, they say a lot. My sister Mrs Botha has a tendency of criticising and complaining everything that we try to propose in this House. Some of the things we would not even have proposed. Let people go and work hard so that we can keep them, so that they do not cross the political floor. [Applause.]]
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson and hon members, the Budget Vote in respect of Parliament is supported by the IFP. I wish to look at the subprogramme Legislation and Oversight. This is the crux of what Parliament has to do. A key issue relates to the committee system. The level of training of the committee administrative clerks needs urgent attention.
The select committees of both Houses are the engine rooms of Parliament. For the committees to function effectively, the administrative clerks have to have good secretarial and language skills. In-house training, followed by yearly evaluation, would allow for adequate skills training. This is an area that must receive attention.
Another area needing attention is that of oversight. The report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Parliamentary Oversight and Accountability, which is being finalised, recommends that a comprehensive guide be prepared on best practices for this, because we need to implement oversight. On behalf of the IFP I would like to recommend that funds be set aside for a manual on oversight to be developed as a matter of urgency.
This is also important also because by April 2003 all departments will have to be fully PFMA-compliant. If we proceed with speed, our Chamber, the NCOP, and the provinces will be fully equipped for their respective roles.
The IFP is also concerned about the financial constraints experienced by the NCOP-clustered committees. I feel that this has been mentioned by several speakers before me. The committees failed to expose their committee members to valuable study tours because of a shortage of funds. Sometimes only a few members are catered for, mainly according to the strength of their percentage vote. This deprives other members to a greater extent. The Parliament Budget Vote should adequately cover each and every committee within a cluster unit. The members’ support structure is a bit inadequate when compared to that of our foreign counterparts, as in other well- developed places, there is one member to three support staff members. To work effectively, members must be well supported in this area.
In conclusion, we wish to give our support to the vote with a strong plea that we do everything necessary for the oversight function to be properly implemented. In this context we might need to re-examine the role of the parliamentary research component. The researchers must have closer ties with our select committees so that they can follow the day-to-day activities and have a deeper understanding of the real issues. The researchers must work in closer co-operation with our committees.
After all, we operate under great pressure, and if, at any time, a motion study were to be undertaken, it would be clear that we as MPs need all the support we can get to function effectively.
Siyawusekela kakhulu umfutho uSihlalo wale Ndlu u-N Pandor asebenza ngawo. Udaba lwasekhaya lolu futhi sengikuchazile okuningi esibona ukuthi kungalungiswa - abasizi abanele abaqeqeshwe kahle, izidingo ezanele zokuqhuba umsebenzi, imali eyanele yokwandisa ulwazi kumalungu ekomiti nokunye nokunye. Inkatha Freedom Party iyaseseka isabiwomali sanamhlanje. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.)
[We fully support the courage with which the Chairperson of this House, Mrs N Pandor, is working. This is a domestic issue and I have explained many things that we think should be rectified. Enough assistants should be well trained, and we should receive enough necessities to do the job. We also need enough money to increase the number of members of the committees and so on.]
Mr T RALANE: Chairperson, there is a saying that goes: Zinamehlo aziboni, zineendlebe aziva. [They have eyes, they cannot see, they have ears, they cannot hear.]
The late Comrade Lenin had this to say: ``You can avoid criticism by being nothing, by saying nothing and by doing nothing.’’ South Africa’s Parliament continues to be a vibrant example of representative democracy in action. It has become the voice of inclusivity, of men and women, of young and old, of the able-bodied and disabled, of people with special needs, of the urban rich and the rural poor, of the straight and the gay.
It is largely due to the ANC’s honest search for a lasting solution which could accommodate South Africa in its diversity that we today have a Parliament that can really be described as a people’s parliament. This is an achievement of which we are tremendously proud.
Another factor that has made it possible for Parliament to become an effective instrument for participatory democracy is the quality of our parliamentary leadership. Under their capable stewardship, Parliament has been able to maximise the annual budget allocated to the institution by broadening public participation, creating cost-effective institutional support structures and by developing more effective procedures for its legislative and oversight functions. The public participation programme of Parliament has been very successful. Not a single day goes by without us encountering individuals or groups from marginalised communities visiting the parliamentary complex. The regular interaction between Parliament and communities, which is facilitated by the public participation unit, promotes greater public awareness and understanding of democratic practices and bodes well for the future wellbeing of our democracy.
Parliament also has an effective electronic communications system in place. It has a well-developed Internet web page which contains useful information and provides an opportunity to interested people and organisations to follow issues that are before Parliament.
A separate Internet-based information management system called ``NCOP Online’’ has been operational since 1999. It links the National Council of Provinces to provincial legislatures and local government associations, and also makes the same information available to the general public. The research capacity for members has also been improved with the establishment of a new library and information services unit. The new research unit has increased the amount and quality of research done, and this has enabled members to make a more qualitative contribution towards the legislative process.
All the above activities were made possible through annual increases in the budget for institutional support. By continuing this trend, the current budget will enable Parliament to improve upon and even increase the above services.
With regard to the legislation and oversight function of Parliament, the budget for these services has shown a significant increase since 1997. It will grow at an average of 16% during the current and next financial year. This steady increase is, amongst other things, justified by the increase in the range of languages used in Parliament.
The ANC believes that this amount will enable Parliament to continue providing the support services required by the institution to fulfil its constitutional functions, to assist political parties to secure administrative support and service their constituents, and to provide MPs with the necessary facilities.
I just want to highlight some aspects. The first point is that members of the NCOP, especially at the level of the budget committee, do not attend sittings of that committee. The second point is that the budget committee intends doing the following: Firstly, to raise sharply and create a mechanism that seeks to evaluate the work of committees; secondly, to effectively check the effectiveness of our own oversight work; thirdly, to check the impact of our work on the lives of our people so that committees are able to justify their budgets. The ANC supports the budget. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Chairperson, I think we must begin by thanking hon members who have assisted in steering the House today - thank you very much to all of you. [Applause.]
We have the difficulty again of the work that various members of Parliament have to do. As members would be aware, we have a delegation at the moment that is attending the meeting of the African and Arab Senates Forum in Morocco, led by the Deputy Chairperson, hence his absence here.
In addition, Ms Ntlabati who is a member, as I indicated earlier, of the SADC Parliamentary Forum executive chairs the gender committee on that body’s set of committees. She is attending a workshop and conference on gender associated with the SADC Parliamentary Forum, hence her absence. So I thank the hon members who have assisted us today.
My thanks as well to all the members who have spoken in this debate. I should have said right at the beginning that, for the past year and the financial year we are considering, our most heartfelt thanks should go to each and every permanent delegate as well as special delegates that have participated in the NCOP for their contribution and sterling work. I think we have really had quite amazing contributions from members of the National Council, from special delegates and from members of Salga - more particularly in 2001 and rather less in 2002, which is something we must address because we are not seeing the kind of local government participation that we should have.
I should also thank the Whips for the contribution that they have made to the House and the progress of work in the House, particularly Mr Surty, the Chief Whip of the National Council, in the leadership with respect to the programme and focus of the institution. I thank him very much. I know we tend to keep him in Cape Town, because of the Chief Whip’s role, rather than having opportunities presented to him to be out of the country playing different roles, but, as they say, his time will probably come.
I would also like then to thank the chairpersons of the select committees. All of us are aware that the chairpersons have been working really hard steering our committees, particularly this year. In the next few weeks, the load of legislation, especially with respect to section 75 legislation, is going to increase substantially, and I am sure our committees are going to be hard pressed to meet the massive agenda, but I know they are well up to the task and we thank each and every chairperson of a select committee for the role that he or she has played. I am deeply appreciative of the commitment of members of the National Council to their very onerous and complex roles.
I know the institution is not an easy one. We are misunderstood by everybody including the media. I always watch with great amusement when they refer to Parliament and they are talking of one House, or to the Speaker of Parliament. I even heard this morning, for example, a member of the media on the television news making reference to the Speaker of the British parliament, when there is no such office. This unidirectional view of parliamentary institutions is a rather peculiar feature of our media. Perhaps we need to look at some engagement there to begin to adjust our own views and perspectives.
A number of points have been raised which I think I will briefly comment upon. Perhaps one of them should be that we wish we could hear more of Mr Ackermann, because we do need to inject some humour and lightness into the House. I think we tend to be rather too serious. I know we are a serious House, but now and again some humour and bright faces are necessary. I would encourage members to relax from time to time.
The matter of the allocation of resources to committees has been made reference to by several members. It is important to say that our committees have often received allocations that have been a thumbsuck rather than a reflection of the programme of committees, and the reason is that we have not been good as committees at presenting budgets linked to our plans. We have to make this honest admission ourselves as committees, but I agree certainly that our resources are inadequate and we are addressing this very directly. We hold the view, in looking at the budget for committees, that we need to be able to provide sufficient support, but also ensure that we address the differences that exist amongst the committees.
I think all of us know that there are certain committees which are clustered in the NCOP, and therefore we have many committees, some committees with large loads and those with less of a load. We have got to be able, in allocating the resources, to distinguish these differences and make sure we provide for the different workloads that committees have to confront. Some committees have to have more hearings and more interaction at the provincial level because they have larger loads in terms of the legislation that they have to deal with. But certainly I agree with hon members that we must address the manner in which resources are provided to committees.
I am concerned about the way in which we sometimes plan our work. We have said that we need our committees to set out a clear annual programme, and I think from this year we have begun to do that. But I still believe that the plans are sometimes unrealistic. I recall that last year the Speaker and I were looking at some of the submissions that we had received and we had one committee whose submission indicated a particular amount for visits to provinces. When we looked at it and turned out the sums behind the millions that were being asked for, it turned out that that committee would have visited each of the nine provinces six times in this year, and, of course, that is absolutely impossible. So it is pie-in-the-sky planning of a budget. I think we need to be far more realistic and far more directed and careful about our planning, so that we can, when we receive budget proposals, see that those proposals are linked to a realistic agenda. But it is an aspect that we are going to address and respond to effectively.
I also think we need to interact with local government far more than we are doing. The initiative that was led primarily by the Chief Whip in the last week of the provincial visits is a very important one. We have talked in the last year about the important legislation that we have passed with respect to local government, the new systems legislation that we passed, and I wonder to what degree we are examining practice with respect to that legislation. I think what we need to do is to take the legislation in our hands and go to each of the 284 municipalities and begin to assess how, with each of the aspects of this new legislation, they are progressing. Then we must come back here and report in full a proper way, as the different provinces, on each aspect of that particular legislation so that we can assess whether the agenda we have set for local government is realisable or whether there is something more we should be doing to assist local government to succeed. I am worried that we are not taking a careful look. I believe we have set local government a very tough agenda and we have to ensure that we support local government in realising the large mandate we have given them.
Mr Durr, of course, as a member with a high level of moral consciousness, has made a very important point with respect to this matter of lobbying and seeking favour from political representatives. I think it is something that really relies largely upon the mechanisms we put in place here in Parliament and our own adherence to them. We have taken major steps with respect to that. We have the register of interests and we are looking now at a code of ethics. I am interested that members are taking very long in finalising it and I wonder why, but certainly we are supposed to finalise the code of ethics.
We are all supposed to be registering entertainment in the register of members’ interests. We need, each time we receive hospitality, to record the form of support and hospitality that we are receiving. I think Mr Durr is absolutely correct that we need to question the pattern of behaviour that we are beginning to exemplify as public representatives. Is it a positive pattern of behaviour? Do we find ourselves, as the leadership of a nation that has called for moral regeneration, reflecting the kind of demand that we are putting to our society?
If we fall short, then clearly there is a problem. If, in our reflection, we find we are up to the standard we are setting, then we are doing very well. It is primarily a matter of conscience. I am not sure it is something we can ourselves direct, apart from the instruments that we put in place, but it is an aspect that we must increasingly monitor and ensure we guide action on.
With respect to the views that have been expressed on the security system, I am aware that we are trying to ensure that this system provides security to members, particularly as we are within the precincts of Parliament. However, that system is not part of the finances of Parliament; it is provided through the finances of the Department of Public Works, hence the lack of reference on our part to it. We are monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the system and, through the internal arrangements committee and the Joint Rules Committee, I think we certainly must assess whether it provides the kind of protection that we would want.
I do not think any responsible parliamentarian would say we do not require security, given recent events in parliaments in other parts of the world, where we have seen people coming into parliament shooting. Perhaps it is because they shot presiding officers that people are not worried, but in fact there have been breaches of security in parliaments. Therefore we need to ensure that we have a good security system in place. What I would want to assess through our monitoring would be whether we have an effective way of ensuring that we do adhere to the security objectives that we have set out and that we are providing maximum support and protection to members.
The matter that was raised by Ms Botha with respect to the Marks Building entrance was drawn to my attention recently and we are looking at it. In fact, I believe it is on the agenda for the next meeting of the internal arrangements committee. It is something that we must resolve. It is absolutely unacceptable that members with disabilities who wish to enter that building find that they are not easily able to do so, and we certainly must address this. I believe it is an oversight which is extremely worrying.
On the matter of cleanliness, members would be aware that in fact we have asked the internal arrangements committee to look at this aspect of our Parliament. Of course we are the ones who throw paper down outside, and we are the ones who may not be keeping the setting as clean as it should be. I really think we have to address whether we assist in maintaining cleanliness while we also ask the staff and management of Parliament to ensure that the place is kept as clean as possible. We are engaging with the Department of Public Works on the maintenance of the parliamentary infrastructure in its totality, and hopefully they will be providing a more dedicated service to us to ensure that we keep up the assets and property of this institution.
I believe that we do have to address the matter of time allocated for visits to provinces, but, as I have said previously, each provincial week must have a purpose. We are not just going to go to provinces and wander around without a clear programme and agenda. If there is a clear set of work that we wish to do that is distinct from a legislative agenda that we have, then I think that we can put that to the Programme Committee and we can programme both the approach and the work, so that every member knows exactly what role they have to play within the provinces.
On the matter of the role of the National Council of Provinces, I have to say that I do agree with the hon Matthee that in fact the matter of co- operative governance is an important principle that must be observed if our democracy is to work. There are some who believe that in fact one can proceed with a single parliament, and no other institution of legislative democracy throughout the country. I do not support such a view, because if one concentrates power in one institution, the likelihood of a lack of representativity occurring is real, and that can be a massive problem for a country.
I believe our Constitution-writers were in fact correct in seeking the institutional promotion of co-operation, and it is something that we must keep in place and ensure that we make work. That means that we as the NCOP have to meet our obligation extremely accurately, because if we are the glue that holds the institutions together, we have to play our role with maximum effectiveness to ensure that indeed, in every sphere, our people believe and feel the representation. That is the challenge that we face. We cannot adhere to the principle of co-operation without it being felt as a living entity where our people are based. Therefore I think it is something we support, but we must pursue it with greater determination and planning.
I did not make reference to the refurbishment of our Chamber, again because it does not fall essentially within our budget; it is something that the Department of Public Works is primarily providing for. Members will be very pleased to learn that the refurbishment is proceeding well. I think they may like the look of the Chamber as it is beginning to emerge. We do have a very high level of technology being provided for us within the Chamber. We have received the specifications of the coats of arms of eight out of the nine provinces - we await the KwaZulu-Natal coat of arms, but the rest we have received - and they will be going up on the walls in the NCOP. We hope that when we return in August we will be returning to our Chamber, and we will not have to utilise a space where we are strangers. [Applause.]
I also support those members who have expressed the view that we need to more directly examine whether indeed we are reflecting provincial interests in our deliberations. I hope that in the debates we are going to be having on the various Budget Votes in the next three weeks we will begin to get a sense of how we are utilising resources from the national fiscus in each of the provinces and the nature of the impact and gap that exists with respect to national policy and support at the provincial level.
I do think we do not yet sufficiently hear about provincial interests in the NCOP. I often ask myself, as I listen to the debates, what distinguishes our contribution from the contributions being made in the National Assembly on the different Budget Votes. Of course one can hear our contributions, but in what way do they reflect provincial interests? I think we need to take a much more careful look at our national impact on provincial practice and policy, in order to really assess whether we are carrying out the role that we should be playing.
Proactive contributions by provinces would be welcome. We certainly have been assisting provinces in terms of public hearings and in terms of their consideration of national legislation. In fact, I recall an article by the Speaker of the Gauteng province, who very honestly admitted that 80% of the work of the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, if I am not wrong, arises from the NCOP’s mandate and work that we bring to the legislature.
Clearly we may even want to ask what the provinces, as legislatures, are doing in terms of the assignment that they enjoy, with respect to Schedule 4 and the other schedules in the Constitution. Are we seeing regulations being produced? Are we seeing any policy emerging on the national concurrent competencies? What form of legislative activity is taking place? How much are provincial legislatures actually meeting? Are they doing sufficient oversight work? With respect to oversight, let us remember that the responsibility primarily resides within the provinces and is not necessarily assigned to us. We reflect the provincial interest, but they must assist us by carrying out a full oversight function at the provincial level. We need to look at whether this is happening and whether it really assists the NCOP.
The matter of the state of the nation address is an interesting one, and I am not sure how it is to be answered. I do not know whether we want to participate in the debate. I feel that would be a regression, because we would perhaps be repeating what happened with the Senate, etc. What I think we should look at is whether it is possible for us to utilise the state of the nation address as a full preparation for the review of the nation that occurs in the National Council of Provinces. For each of the areas of action that emanate from the state of the nation address at the beginning of every year, can we track implementation and performance? When we review at the end of the year, are we able to see what progress has been made?
That may be an assignment that the National Council of Provinces wants to look at, but I really would be wary of our having a duplication in place and wanting to participate in a debate just for the sake of debate. I would rather like us to examine far more carefully how we may utilise the state of the nation address to enhance the work of the NCOP. Maybe we would ask Mr Matthee to give consideration to that and then we could come back and look at it. I am not sure whether participating in the debate is the answer. There may be other activities and responses that we could devise, and I believe we should spend some time thinking about that.
On the project of Parliament to the People, this is an exciting initiative that we are trying to set about and again it is something that we will need to budget for in future. I hope we will successfully implement the pilot that we have set in place for this year, which will see us proceeding to the Eastern Cape province to engage with the people on Parliament: What is parliament? What is the role that Parliament can play in enhancing the life of the people? We should mix that, as the Whips agreed this week, with legislative work in the province on legislation that we will be dealing with at that time, at the beginning of August. It is an important initiative and one that we certainly would want to make a part of the NCOP.
With respect to Ms Dlulane’s concern about transport, I am aware that the matter of transport has been a source of concern among members for some time. Unfortunately, the transport service provided is contracted to the Department of Public Works. I think we need to examine why so many of Parliament’s Services reside with Public Works and whether they should not reside directly within Parliament. However, within Parliament our management has decided to provide a facility so that members can communicate any concerns and problems, which can then be raised by the parliamentary staff with the Department of Public Works. I am sure members can get information as to the staff member dealing with this matter and where the person is located so that they could engage with them on the transport problems that members are facing.
Mrs Vilakazi made an important contribution about the need to ensure that the staff assigned to committees are fully trained and supported to be able to effectively support our committees.
I was quite amazed last week when I was approached by a person who is a manager supporting research for a committee on finance in the lower House in the Parliament of Germany. After we had had a brief conversation she handed me her card and I noted that she had a Phd. That is the level of committee support that they provide. Perhaps we need to ensure that we do provide support to our staff, but we also need to ask whether a clerk is sufficient and whether we should not be looking for a higher level of training background in order to get the kind of staff support that committees believe they require.
On the matter of oversight, as I have said, I believe that the oversight role is there for the National Council of Provinces, but it resides in partnership with the provincial legislatures. We need to look at how we work to review implementation so that we are able to exercise a full oversight role. The landscape study book that Mrs Vilakazi and Mr Matthee referred to provides some guidelines on what the role of the NCOP would be with respect to oversight. We need to look at that and at whether we are carrying out those sets of mandates. Each of our committees should be examining whether they are indeed carrying out their oversight obligation.
On the matter of study tours, that is entirely a decision of committees, as presiding officers do not play a role in committee decisions on study tours, but certainly on the matter of finances two committees would be an aspect that has to be addressed as we look at it. Regarding Mr Raju’s view that the chairpersons always travel, I do not know about that, but that is something that the committee must address.
In conclusion, I would like to mention two areas in which I believe we need urgent responses from members of Parliament. The first area is that of the symbol of Parliament. We have been trying for two and a half years to get new symbols that are in line with the democracy we achieved in 1994. We asked the public to make submissions and the public did. We asked the State Herald to assist us in putting forward suggestions as to the nature of symbols suggested by the public submissions. The State Herald did that. The Joint Rules Committee then referred the material that we received to political parties. We have been waiting to hear from political parties their final views on the symbols so that, after eight years, we can have new symbols of Parliament.
I would ask political parties to act on this matter so that at last, after eight years, we do have new symbols. It would be terrible if we all retired from Parliament in 2004 and left the new Parliament then to proceed with the whole process of once more trying to get new symbols in place. The lack of responsiveness by political parties and the lack of submissions are very worrying. I think we all have to act more speedily, especially the large party, the majority party, to ensure that these processes do move.
The second area where there is a gap, in my view, is that of the language policy for Parliament.
Ke a swaba ga ke reetsa fa re bua mo ntlung ye. Ke bone gore ga re buwe puo tsa rona, ke a ipotsa gore ke eng re sa buwe puo tsa rona. [I become disappointed when listening to the debates in this House. I have realised that we do not speak our languages and I do not know why we do not address the House in our languages.] Kutheni singathethi iilwimi zethu, sithetha iSingesi qha? [Why are we not speaking our languages, but English only?] I am asking why it is - for the benefit of hon members who do not speak Setswana or isiXhosa - that we do not use the other languages of this country. We have 11 official languages that are recognised in our Constitution, and represented in this room are persons each of whom can speak at least two of those 11 languages, and yet 89% of the time we speak English. I think this is unacceptable. [Applause.] It does not reflect the multilingualism that we have committed ourselves to.
I believe we should ask ourselves what form of policy we need to have with respect to language in our Parliament and what steps we should take to improve our use of a multilingual approach in our debates. I thought Ms Nkuna in the debate on media diversity would speak today, would speak the diverse languages that she can use so well. Of course, I always look forward to Reverend Moatshe’s wonderful expressions and idioms in Setwana. Bagaetsho re tla dirisa puo tsa rona re buwe setswana. [I hope that we will use our languages, and speak Setswana.] Sithetha isiXhosa. [We speak Xhosa.] sikhulume isiZulu. [We speak Zulu.] Izizwe zonke zisive xa sithetha, abantu bethu nabo bavume ukuba nabo bakhona kula Palamente. [All nations should understand us when we speak and our people too should then agree that they are indeed present in Parliament.] If our people can hear us speaking each of the languages of our country, they will at least say ``I am present in that House.’’
Ke teng moo ntlung yeo, le nna ke a utlwagala. [Legofi.] [I am present in that House. My voice is heard.] [Applause.]]
Debate concluded.
The Council adjourned at 17:13. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
WEDNESDAY, 5 JUNE 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS: National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
(1) The Minister of Finance submitted the Wetsontwerp op Finansiële
Advies- en Tussengangersdienste [W 52 - 2001] (National Assembly -
sec 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 5 June 2002. This is
the official translation of the Financial Advisory and
Intermediary Services Bill [B 52 - 2001] (National Assembly - sec
75), which was introduced in the National Assembly by the Minister
on 29 August 2001.
TABLINGS:
National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Chairperson:
Request received from the Minister for the Public Service and
Administration for parliamentary approval for retention of service
beyond the age of 65 in terms of the Public Service Act, 1994
(Proclamation 103 of 1994).
Request referred to the Select Committee on Local Government and
Administration, the committee to confer with the Select Committee on
Economic and Foreign Affairs. The Select Committee on Local Government
and Administration to report by 24 June 2002.
Copies of the correspondence are available from the Clerk of Papers.
- The Chairperson:
First Report of the Working Group on the African Union
A. Introduction
The Working Group was established on 16 November 2001 by a resolution
of the National Council of Provinces. The primary focus of the Working
Group was to consider the implementation of the Constitutive Act of the
African Union
B. Composition of the Working Group
The following Members were appointed to the Working Group:
Ms G N M Pandor (Chairperson)
Mr M L Mushwana
Mr M E Surty
Mr M A Sulliman
Ms J N Vilakazi
Ms C-S Botha
Mr P A Matthee
C. Objectives of the Working Group
The brief of the Working Group is to:
* Consider Parliament's participation in the implementation of
the Constitutive Act of the African Union and suggest
appropriate procedural mechanisms for this.
* Determine the involvement of Parliament in assisting the South
African Government in the process of implementation of the
African Union.
D. Meetings of the Working Group
The working group met on 19 February 2002 and on 3 June 2002.
Individual Members of the Working Group also attended meetings of the
National Assembly Working Group on the African Union, as well as the
two seminars on the African Union that were held at Parliament.
E. Recommendations
The working group considered the following instruments: The
Constitutive Act of AU; the protocol establishing the Pan-African
Parliament, the protocol establishing the African Court of Justice and
the South African Constitution. The comments below arise from comments
and discussions within the working group.
These instruments were analysed against the established principles of
Public International law. They were weighed against the South African
Constitution as dictated to by section 234, which stipulates:
In order to deepen the culture of democracy established by the
Constitution, Parliament may adopt Charters of Rights consistent
with the provisions of the Constitution.
Section 233:
When interpreting any legislation, every court must prefer any
reasonable interpretation of the legislation that is consistent
with international law to any alternative interpretation that is
inconsistent with international law.
And lastly section 232, which provides:
Customary international law is law in the Republic unless it is
inconsistent with the Constitution or an Act of Parliament.
For comparison the UN Charter and the Statute of International Court
were also analysed.
In the case of the PAP and the African Court of Justice, perhaps there
may still be an opportunity to raise the issues if our comments are
found valid and reservations may still be entered (registered) during
the time of signing, in the event that the points can no longer be
canvassed with other countries or blocs with which South Africa has a
good relationship.
I. Constitutive Act of the AU:
* The language of the Act is not gender sensitive/gender neutral (e.g.
references to Chairman)
* The Report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs highlighted the
following:
* Possible contradictions between provisions in the Act
(e.g. provisions regarding accelerating political and socio-
economic integration, provisions relating to a common defence
policy; provisions relating to right of intervention in member
States
* Possible infringement of sovereignty of States
We recognise the significance of the Constitutive Act being adopted by
the Heads of State and the framework which it sets in place. But having
regard to the developments that have already occurred on the continent
between countries and within regions, it is important for the following
to be noted:
* The Act makes reference to accelerating political and socio-economic
integration. Questions arise as to what will happen to the
existing agreements that South Africa has entered into. Are these
going to fall away? How are they going to be part of the existing
framework? Parliament may need to assist in this process by
examining the existing agreements and by recommending areas for
review or further action. Consideration should be given to
providing resources for Parliament to conduct such a review.
* The Act makes reference to a common defence policy without giving any
guidance as to what this may mean. Furthermore, important
principles that have informed South Africa's current policy on
defence matters, such as the promotion of peace, the encouragement
of conflict resolution, and so forth, are not highlighted
sufficiently.
* There seems to be a possibility of overlapping of the powers of the
Assembly with those of the Executive Council. These need to be
unravelled as this might lead to duplication.
* The provision dealing with the appointment of the judiciary needs
tightening up as at the end there is a random picking of those to
retire first: Is it not possible to tie these to some competence,
if only to maintain a balance between the need for rotation on one
side and building of retention and transfer of skills within the
judiciary on the other. The matter of removal from office will be
dealt with when dealing with the African Court of Justice (ACJ).
II. Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic
Community relating to the Pan-African Parliament
* Article 5(4)(d): The definition of what would constitute
``misconduct'' should be clearly defined in the Rules of
Procedure of the PAP as the rules of debate of some African
countries reflect basically four different systems in Africa,
viz French, Westminster, Arabic, Constitutionalism (RSA).
* Article 6: Voting. We believe that at least for the period when
membership of the PAP is based on the membership of the
Parliaments of the Member States, the Members are representing
their legislatures and therefore should be voting by way of a
mandate received from their legislatures, and not as
individuals. When the PAP has developed to such a stage that
Members campaign themselves for seats in the PAP then they vote
as they please.
* Article 8: Immunities. We believe that a comparison should be made of
the immunities, which members of the SA Parliament receive as
opposed to the immunities which members of the PAP have. SA
Parliament to be aware of any ``clashes'' - particularly since
the immunities could be very broad and far-reaching.
Immunities should as far as possible be linked to the discharge of
duties as a member of the PAP.
* Article 10: Allowances.
The understanding of the South African Parliament has always been
that the individual Parliaments would be responsible for the
salaries of their Members to the Pan-African Parliament (PAP).
These persons would be full Members of that Parliament and would
therefore receive that salary. In terms of allowances, the issue
that would have to be looked at would be the subsistence and
travel allowances (S&T). It is that component that would have to
be incorporated in the budgeting.
It therefore means that the governments on the continent must be
aware that in budgeting for 2003 and beyond, they have to ensure
that in their budgets they include provision for allowances and
travel of the Members of the Pan-African Parliament. (It is
anticipated that the first sitting of the Pan-African Parliament
will take place in 2003).
Consideration should also be given to the question of what support
the individual Parliaments would have to provide to their Members
of the PAP.
* Article 12(5): We would suggest that the President and the four Vice
Presidents be accountable for the management and administration of
the PAP, but that the Clerk and Deputy Clerks be responsible for
the management and administration of PAP. This position links up
with the comments that we have previously made regarding the
continuity of membership of the PAP. It is likely that the
President and other Officers will not have the continuity in the
same way as the Clerk and Deputies have. The latter will be the
institutional memory of the PAP, and therefore it would be more
appropriate if they were responsible for administration and
management of the PAP.
* It is envisaged that the PAP will ultimately have full legislative
functions. The question is should the PAP's legislative function
be limited to setting norms and standards that domestic law must
incorporate, or should the PAP have full legislative powers so
that it produces law that each of the Member States have to base
their practice upon?
* It would be important that a basic set of principles and rights are
agreed upon in order to reduce the potential for conflict in the
area of Human Rights law. We need to give recognition to the fact
that Charters on Human Rights already exist on the continent, as
formulated by the Organisation of African Unity.
It would be vital that the African Union and the PAP, in particular,
examine those Charters in order to look at whether they are still
appropriate in regard to current conditions, or whether there is a
need to review and amend those instruments.
III. African Charter on Human and People's Rights - African Court on
Human and People's Rights
The preamble to this protocol provides:
``Firmly convinced that the attainment of the objectives of the
African Charter on Human and People's Rights requires the
establishment of an African Court on Human and People's
Commission to complement and reinforce the functions of the
African Commission on Human and People's Rights.''
Article 6 on Admissibility of Cases provides:
(3) The Court may consider cases or transfer them to the
Commission.
Article 8, meanwhile, provides:
The Rules of Procedure of the Court shall lay down the detailed
conditions under which the Court shall consider cases brought
before it, bearing in mind the complementarity between the
Commission and the Court.
* The roles of the Court and the Commission have to be clarified
in quite a distinct way so that we see how they are
distinguished from each other, then we can accept the
complementarity between the two. We accept that they must
liaise because the basis of appeal to the Court would be the
infringement of rights.
The Constitutive Act in Article 26 provides:
Interpretation
The Court shall be seized with matter of interpretation arising
from the application or implementation of this Act ...
Article 6(3) of the Protocol on the Court and article 26 of the
Constitutive Act need to be reconciled. Under normal circumstances
courts are usually the last ports of arbiter. Article 4 of the
Protocol on the Court provides powers to the Court to provide an
opinion on any legal matter relating to the Charter or any other
relevant human right instruments but excludes any subject matter
being examined by the Commission.
It is unusual for an arrangement in which a court would consider a
case or transfer it to a commission.
* We believe that the Court must have the power to determine the
outcome.
Article 10 of the Protocol of the Court provides for free legal
representation where the interests of justice so require. It is
accepted that this provision may be there to ensure accessibility
of justice to all. However, it would seem that the wording is such
that it is open to abuse as there are not stipulations regarding
conditions for qualification for free legal representation.
* We would propose the inclusion of a conditionality, such as
``free legal representation where the interests of justice and
administration so require, as determined by the Assembly or
the Pan-African Parliament in legislation.''
* Article 15 regulates the term of office of judges. Article
15(2) might need to be tidied up, as it is too informal to
such an institution. The comments raised above under the
Constitutive Act article regulating this are applicable here.
* Article 17(3) grants judges of the Court immunities extended to
diplomatic agents in accordance with international law.
Article 17(3) and its full implications have to be examined as
it raises a set of complex problems with respect to natural
justice.
* Article 17(4) provides:
At no time shall the judges of the Court be held liable
for any decision or opinion issued in the exercise of
their function.
The formulation of article 17(4) needs to be carefully reviewed
because the level of licence that it grants appears to be
excessive and does not link to any known standards. It is far
too wide and needs to include certain checks and balances.
* Article 19(1) provides for cessation of office. This article is
also intended to reinforce the independence of the judiciary.
Consideration should be given to the need to ensure that due
process is available to judges in such instances.
It may also be useful to consider providing for members of the
judiciary to approach the Assembly in cases where they hold
the view that their rights have been infringed.
IV. African Charter on Human and People's Rights - Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
* Article 41 of the Charter provides for the appointments to the
Commission. It would be important to look at the process with a
view to identifying how greater transparency, public
participation and the involvement of civil society can be
introduced into the process.
F. Conclusion
The Working Group had seen this initial process as an interim process
preparing the initial thinking of the two Houses, and would therefore
recommend that, subject to the concurrence of the National Assembly, a
joint working committee on the African Union be established.
Report to be considered.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Council of Provinces:
-
Report of the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises on Labour Standards Convention, dated 5 June 2002:
The Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Convention concerning Tripartite Consultations to Promote the Implementation of International Labour Standards, 1976 (Convention No 144), referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Convention.
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises on Occupational Safety and Health Convention, dated 5 June 2002:
The Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Convention concerning Occupational Safety and Health and the Working Environment, 1981 (Convention No 155), referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Convention.
Report to be considered.
THURSDAY, 6 JUNE 2002
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
(a) Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Public Investment
Commissioners for 2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 50-2002].
(b) General Notice No 662 published in Government Gazette No 23383
dated 30 April 2002, Statement of the National and Provincial
Government's Revenue, Expenditure and National Borrowing as at 31
March 2002, in terms of section 32 of the Public Finance
Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of 1999).
- The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:
Annual Report and Financial Statements of the National Arts Council for
2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2000-2001.
- The Minister of Transport:
(a) Air Services Agreement between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Mozambique,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Agreement.
- The Minister of Labour:
Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Compensation Fund for
2000-2001, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2000-2001 [RP 72-2002]. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Council of Provinces:
- Report of the Select Committee on Social Services on Provincial Visit to Gauteng, dated 18 September 2001:
Contents Paragraph
Introduction A
Lindela Repatriation Centre
Background B
Findings C
Conclusion D
Recommendations E
Department of Home Affairs
Background F
Findings G
Recommendations H
Annexure I
The Select Committee on Social Services reports as follows:
A. Introduction
A delegation of the Committee visited the Lindela Repatriation
Centre and the Department of Home Affairs in Gauteng on 24 and 25
May 2001. The aim of the visit was to -
* critically assess the living conditions at the Centre, to
investigate allegations in the media about human rights abuses
at the Centre, and to see in which way the Committee could
intervene to address problem areas; and
* ascertain progress made with the new system of the ID smart
card at the Department.
The delegation, under the leadership of Ms L Jacobus (ANC -
Gauteng), included -
* Ms N S Ntlabati (ANC - Free State);
* Mrs E C Gouws (DP - Eastern Cape);
* Mr T H Sogoni (UDM - Eastern Cape); and
* Mr J Horne (New NP - Northern Cape).
Ms M Mukhuba, Committee Secretary, accompanied the delegation.
Lindela Repatriation Centre
B. Background
The Lindela Repatriation Centre was established in 1996. It is the
only centre of its kind in the country. There has been a
continuous outcry in the media about the treatment of inmates at
the Centre. A number of instances of abuse, including physical and
mental abuse of inmates, had been reported. It is also alleged
that inmates' human rights were being violated and that the living
conditions were appalling. Illegal activities allegedly committed
by staff, such as the tearing up of legal papers and other
documents, had also been leveled against officials who ran the
centre.
The visit included a meeting with management and staff as well as
a tour of the facility.
C. Findings
1. Overview by Mr J L van Vuuren, Project Leader/Deputy Director:
Home Affairs
The Centre is a place where illegal immigrants are kept prior
to deportation to their countries of origin. Within 72 hours,
the Centre's officials should be able to classify from which
country an immigrant comes. The official's only source of
information is the arrestee himself or herself. It is common
for arrestees to provide officials with inaccurate
information, because they fear deportation. The information is
sent to the relevant Embassy or High Commission as well as to
the Department of Home Affairs. Once this has been done, the
official prepares the repatriation documents to facilitate
deportation.
The Centre functions with four computers, three cameras, three
fingerprint scanners and an identification card reader, which
are integrated into a database. The database information
includes -
* Name and surname;
* Date of birth;
* Photo capturing on an individual basis;
* Fingerprint identification;
* Date and place of arrest;
* Date of admission;
* Date of release; and
* Country of origin.
The information is then stored on the identification card
given to the inmate on admittance. Upon release, this card is
scanned into a separate computer and the inmate's fingerprints
are read on the scanner again. The identification card is kept
on file at the Centre for administration purposes.
Up to 4 000 people can be accommodated at the Centre. About 1
500 people are deported every month. The South African Police
Service brings about 90% of the immigrants to the Centre from
various police stations, mostly from ones in Gauteng. However,
immigrants are also brought from police stations in other
provinces along Gauteng's border. The remaining 10% are
brought to the Centre by Home Affairs officials, who often
travel from as far as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban,
Umtata, Richard's Bay, etc. Immigrants are repatriated, almost
on a daily basis, to border posts, Johannesburg International
Airport and Lanseria Airport. Furthermore, a train departs
weekly to Mozambique from the railway station next to the
Centre.
2. Site visit
The delegation had an opportunity to observe the kitchen,
ablution facilities, sleeping quarters, dining hall, sports
field and recreation centre.
Accommodation
The delegation was presented with a document compiled by the
Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA),
which ruled out all allegations against the Centre that had
appeared in the media (see Annexure A).
Inmates were free to move around inside the Centre, but they
were not allowed to leave unless they were being repatriated
to their countries of origin.
Food
An amount of R21,81 per day was allocated to each inmate for
meals.
Different menus for breakfast, lunch and dinner were on
display on the walls next to the kitchen. Meals were prepared
in the kitchen and then transported to the dining hall for
distribution. There was also a canteen, where various things
are sold.
Bedrooms
The sleeping area was divided into a section for men and
women. Children under 10 were kept with their mothers. There
was also a crèche for toddlers. During the visit the crèche
was closed because there were not enough children. Each room
had a number of bunk beds. Upon arrival, the inmates were
allocated a room with a bed and blanket. One of the inmates
said that the blankets had lice and bugs. The officials
indicated that the inmates themselves brought these lice and
bugs into the Centre. Blankets were sent to the dry cleaners
twice a month.
Mattresses were constantly being damaged, and this was evident
in the men's section. The damaged ones were replaced
regularly. Women had their own television room. Toilets and
showers were inside their rooms. Personal toiletries for women
were provided on a daily basis and baby formula, bottles and
teats were provided for mothers with babies.
Health service
The Centre had a clinic with one nurse on duty every day and a
doctor who visited it on a daily basis. The nurse saw about
100 people per day. At around 10:45 on the day of the visit,
the nurse had already seen over 50 persons.
Security
There was an electric perimeter fence as well as a run with
dogs. The facility was also monitored by close circuit
television and cameras. Surveillance tapes recorded by these
cameras were kept for 30 days. The officials indicated that
even though there was tight security, inmates sometimes did
escape. Some of them hid on the day of deportation to escape
the scheduled deportation.
Recreation facilities
There was a library that used to provide newspapers and
magazines to inmates. Most of the material had been stolen and
the library was subsequently closed. There was also a
playground where inmates could play football and other games.
There were also a number of pay phones in both sections for
use by inmates. A Vodacom facility was located in the men's
section, but women were also allowed to use it.
Communication with inmates
There was an induction programme conducted by an official for
new inmates on their day of arrival. The person who did the
induction could speak some of the languages commonly spoken
and understood by the inmates.
D. Conclusion
1. The level of compliance with human rights principles regarding
the living conditions and the basic human rights of the
inmates appeared to be satisfactory.
2. The Centre was in a very impressive condition, neat and very
different from prison conditions.
3. Food for inmates met the nutritional requirements.
4. The women's section was cleaner and more organised than the
men's section.
5. The clinic did not have adequate equipment for health workers
to fulfil their duties. If an inmate was in a serious
condition, he or she was taken to the nearest hospital under
the supervision of a security guard.
6. Ms Jacobus indicated that the delegation was satisfied with the
conditions at the Centre. It was the complete opposite from
what was reflected in the media.
E. Recommendations
1. Staff should be protected against diseases that are brought to
the Centre by inmates.
2. Inmates should undergo check-ups for illnesses or diseases
before they are admitted to the Centre.
3. The Department of Home Affairs should assist the Centre by
providing more staff and infrastructure in order to run the
facility more effectively.
4. Additional health care personnel should be deployed to the
Centre.
5. The Departments of Home Affairs and of Safety and Security
should clarify whose responsibility it is to provide security
for deportees.
6. The Department of Home Affairs should take strong disciplinary
action against officials who engage in any form of corrupt
practice.
7. An HIV/AIDS awareness programme should be implemented.
8. Foreign missions should be encouraged to respond timeously to
requests for information by officials of the Centre.
9. The Centre should be allocated its own budget and administer
it, and should give an account of its expenditure to the
Department of Home Affairs.
Department of Home Affairs
F. Background
The delegation met with officials at the Department of Home
Affairs in Pretoria.
G. Findings
1. Overview by Mr J R Chavalala, Chief Director: Strategic
Planning and Service Delivery, Home Affairs, and other
officials
The officials briefed the delegation on the smart card ID
system. Discussions were taking place between the Departments
of Home Affairs, of Health, of Social Development and of
Transport in order to include personal information from these
departments on the smart card. Discussions will also have to
take place at Cabinet level before final approval is given for
the system to be implemented.
It will take about 18 months from the date of Cabinet approval
to conclude the process of procurement and contracting. Once
the contract is approved, it will take a further nine months
before the first card is issued, because the technology to
produce the card is currently not available in this country.
Malaysia and Finland currently have this technology. The
envisaged date for the issuing of the first smart card is the
beginning of 2003.
H. Recommendations
1. The Department should expedite its discussions with the
relevant departments.
2. The Cabinet should agree on the information that should be
captured on the smart card.
3. The tender process should begin as soon as possible in order to
meet the envisaged date of 2003.
I. Annexure - Findings by BCCSA, published on 21 May 2001
``MESSAGE TO CLIENTS, STAKEHOLDERS AND STAFF OF BOSASA''
"BROADCASTING COMPLAINTS COMMISSION FINDS IN FAVOUR OF DYAMBU AND
BOSASA"
1. You may be aware that Dyambu Operations (Pty) Ltd, now called
Bosasa, was in part the subject of a defamatory Carte Blanche
programme broadcast on the evening of Sunday 7 May 2000. At
the time we stated our intention to pursue every avenue to
preserve our good name and in fact laid the whole matter
before the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa
(BCCSA).
2. We are delighted to tell you that the BCCSA has not only upheld
the complaint of Dyambu Operations but has also censured Carte
Blanche for contravening its Code of Conduct. A retraction was
read on Carte Blanche yesterday evening the 20th May 2001 and
published in the national press, the retraction and full
judgment will be available on M-Net's website for the next two
weeks.
3. The findings are as follows:
The commissioners (Prof Kobus van Rooyen SC with Dr Willem de
Klerk and Rathu Mokgoatheng) found that negative comment on
the Lindela facilities did not take fair and balanced account
of all related material facts.
They found that the broadcast ignored several positive facts
about the centre, which were brought to the producer's
attention. For example, it failed to mention several
facilities, including a fully equipped clinic with a doctor
and qualified nurses, a well-equipped games room, four TV
rooms, a soccer field, public telephones, a fully stocked
canteen and a dining hall serving fully balanced and well
prepared meals.
4. The commissioners reprimanded M-Net for its negligence in not
affording Dyambu Operations any opportunity of responding to
negative and critical statements despite having promised to do
so.
5. The commissioners also found that M-Net was negligent in not
making reasonable efforts to fairly present significant
alternative points of view by not having broadcast a
responding statement by Dyambu Operations.
6. It also confirmed that there had been no improprieties in the
award of the tender by the Department of Home Affairs in 1996.
7. The enquiry concluded that the impression created in the
programme that politicians, including Dr. Lindiwe Sisulu, had
an interest in Dyambu Operations, the company awarded the
tender to manage the facility, was unfounded.
8. The enquiry further concluded that the impression created that
there were improper dealings in the company structuring of
Dyambu Operations, was also unfounded and could easily have
been explained by a corporate lawyer as being in accord with
ordinary corporate law.
9. While regretting that the occasion should never have arisen in
the first place, it is pleasing that our efforts have led to a
satisfactory resolution of this unfortunate affair, and has
completely vindicated us of these allegations ...''