National Council of Provinces - 05 November 2002
TUESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2002 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 14:10.
The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Minister Mufamadi, I notice you are amazed by the linguistic dexterity I displayed in opening the proceedings. [Laughter.] I am waiting to practice my Tshivenda.
NEW MEMBER
(Announcement)
The Chairperson announced that the vacancy in the representation of the Northern Province caused by the resignation of Mr M L Mushwana had been filled by the appointment of Mr M J Mahlangu with effect from 31 October 2002.
OATH
Mr Mahlangu had made and subscribed the oath in the office of the Chairperson on 5 November 2002.
ELECTION OF PERMANENT DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
PROVINCES
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! There will now be an opportunity for nominations for the Permanent Deputy Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces in terms of section 64(2) of the Constitution. Are there any nominations?
Mr M I MAKOELA: Chairperson, I, Masilo Makoela, hereby nominate Mr M J Mahlangu as Permanent Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP. I do this with the full trust that Mr Mahlangu, having served in the institution of Parliament as a member of the National Assembly, has the ability to fill the position.
I also know that Mr Mahlangu has been serving as Chairperson of Committees in the National Assembly, and that having been part of the Codesa negotiations, he knows where the NCOP comes from and therefore is not going to be new to this House, even if he has not served in it. I also trust that he has the ability to carry out the work entrusted to him.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mr M J Mahlangu has been nominated. Is the nomination seconded?
Ms J L KGOALI: Chairperson, I, Joyce Kgoali, second the hon Makoela’s nomination of Mr M J Mahlangu, knowing full well that Mr Mahlangu will be able to fulfil the responsibilities of the position to which he has been elected. Mr Mahlangu has been a member since 1994 and is one of the people who made possible the new Constitution that we adopted in 1996. I feel strongly that he is the right candidate for this position.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Could the nomination form be presented to the returning officer? [Applause.] We have not arrived at that point yet, hon members. [Laughter.] Are there any formal nominations? If there are not, that concludes the nomination. Could the returning officer examine the form and indicate whether it is indeed correct?
Only one candidate has been nominated: Mr Mninwa Johannes Mahlangu. The nomination is in order, and in terms of item 5 of Schedule 3 to the Constitution, I accordingly declare Mr Mninwa Johannes Mahlangu duly elected as the Permanent Deputy Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces. [Applause.]
On behalf of all the delegates present here today, I congratulate you, Mr Mahlangu, on having been elected as the Deputy Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, and welcome you both to the institution and to the very important role that you will now play.
I would now like to afford an opportunity to the provincial Whips to express their votes of congratulation to the new Permanent Deputy Chairperson.
Nksz B N DLULANE: Mhlalingaphambili, ndithi mandithabathe eli thuba ndivakalise ukuba nathi phaya phesheya kweNciba sithi Huuntshu!, kwinkokeli yabantu. Siyayamkela kule Ndlu. Siyalazi igalelo layo kwaye sithembisa nokuba siya kuyixhasa. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Ms B N DLULANE: Chairperson, I would like to take this opportunity to express our support for the leader of the people as people from the former Transkei region. We welcome him to this House. We all know his contributions and we promise that we will support him. [Applause.]]
Mr T S SETONA: Madam Chair, I rise on behalf of the Free State province to congratulate Mr Mahlangu on his unopposed election as the Deputy Chairperson of this Council. We want to tell him that he is welcome in this House and that he will be assured, through thick and thin in the challenges that are facing us as a collective and as individuals, of our unwavering support. [Applause.]
Dr E A CONROY: Chairperson, Mr Mahlangu, on behalf of the province of Gauteng I wish to add our congratulations to those of the other provinces on your election as the Deputy Chairperson of this august House. We welcome you in our midst, not as someone who will soon be a member of this small and close-knit family, but in the full knowledge that you are already one of us.
Deputy Chairperson Mahlangu, please lead us with our hon Chairperson. We are ready to follow you. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I call upon KwaZulu-Natal. KwaZulu-Natal? Mr Mahlangu, you will have to sort them out at some further stage. [Laughter.]
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I also wish to give our overwhelming support as the province of KwaZulu-Natal to the election of Mr Mahlangu.
Ngithi kuMnu Mahlangu siyathokoza kakhulu ngokuthi abe khona phakathi kwethu. Siyazi ukuthi ungomunye wamaqhawe ahlabana ethule. Sengathi kungaba njalo. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.)
[I would like to say to Mr Mahlangu that we greatly appreciate the fact that he is among us. We know that he is one of those heroes who unpretentiously performs great deeds. I wish it to be so. [Applause.]
Mr V V Z WINDVOëL: Chairperson, as delegated by our provincial Whip and on behalf of the Mpumalanga delegation, I wish to express our hearty welcome to Comrade M J Mahlangu. We want to believe that he will bring fresh ideas into this institution. An old English saying goes that a -new broom sweeps clean, and we believe that this broom will not be an exception.
We must also remind this august House that Mr Mahlangu originates from Mpumalanga. [Laughter.] However, we must encourage him to service all the provinces and parties equally. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Chairperson, on behalf of the Northern Cape I wish to welcome Mr M J Mahlangu and wish him all the success. I hope that he will be able to cope with some of our mad members in this House. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] I am just joking. [Laughter.]
We welcome him. He should feel at home as he is one of the family. [Applause.]
Chief M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, it is with pride, joy and happiness that I welcome the hon M J Mahlangu, on behalf of my peaceful province, to this august House and congratulate him on being elected to this very important chairpersonship of Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP.
He is from the Northern Province. [Interjections.] No matter how deep the bottle is, the cream will always be on top. God bless Mr Mahlangu. [Applause.]
Mr J O TLHAGALE: Chairperson, I am delegated by the North West provincial Whip, Mr Kolweni, to welcome the hon Mr M J Mahlangu and to congratulate him on his appointment as the Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP.
We are convinced and satisfied that given Mr Mahlangu’s long-standing experience in the political field, he will assist to the best of his ability in leading this House. [Applause.]
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, it is my pleasure to welcome Mr Mushwana … [Interjections.] … Mr Mahlangu. [Laughter.] I am sorry, I am getting mixed up. I congratulate Mr Mahlangu on his new appointment and I would just like to say that when one looks at his CV, which I called for, one understands why he has been appointed to this position.
He has not been appointed to this position because he is a party hack who has made his way through the ranks, but has been appointed very much on merit. He has a most distinguished parliamentary career. In the modern sense of the word he can be regarded as a true parliamentarian: He was elected as a member of Parliament in 1994 to a parliament which he helped shape in that he was a member of the transitional executive from 1993 to 1994; he was co-chairperson of the multiparty negotiation process; he was a negotiator at Codesa; and he participated in the multiparty negotiating process from 1991 to 1994.
He has served on all the formations of this Parliament: as a committee member, as a Whip, as the Chairperson of committees and in various roles in this Parliament, which will give him great insight into the ways and machinations of this Parliament and into our needs. Clearly, he is well- qualified for this job. We welcome him and look forward to having him with us. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon members, before we invite some of the political parties to express their congratulations, I would like to note the presence of a delegation from the senate of Australia. I ask them to rise so that we can acknowledge their presence. [Applause.] Hon Tierney and your delegation, you are welcome to the Parliament of South Africa.
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, on behalf of the DP I wish to extend the party’s sincere congratulations and a warm welcome to Mr M J Mahlangu on his new appointment as the Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP. I am certain that Mr Mahlangu will be able to cope with the onerous responsibilities related to the new position. There is no doubt that he brings impeccable credentials to the position.
Mr Mahlangu can rest assured that the DP will give him its fullest co- operation in executing his duties and in elevating the profile of the NCOP to new heights. Mr Mahlangu will find that this Council, being the upper House, is rather staid in character, and more restrained and dignified than the cauldron of the National Assembly. [Laughter.]
In fact, he might find the change similar to a change from the ridiculous to the sublime. We have our moments of aberration, of course, as alluded to by the hon Mrs Lubidla, when certain miscreants do become a trifle noisy, but I am looking forward to his admonishments in those instances.
In the short time I have personally known Mr Mahlangu, he has been of amiable and cheerful disposition. The DP is pleased to welcome him to our august House as the Deputy Chairperson. [Applause.]
Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, on behalf of the New NP I wish to add my congratulations to Mr M J Mahlangu on his election to this very high office of Deputy Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces.
I wish to assure him of our very best wishes in this new, very important position, and to assure him also that he can rely on our co-operation. I look forward to working very closely with him. We have known him for a long time and we know that he has all the ability and credentials to lead us in this new position and we look forward to that. [Applause.]
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, the IFP, like all other parties, extends its gratitude for, and welcomes Mr Mahlangu. We are really very pleased about the steps taken and the level to which he has been raised.
Siyathokoza kakhulu thina beNkatha Freedom Party ukubona umfowethu uMnu Mahlangu ebesilokhu simbona khona engale lapho zivame ukushisa khona izinhlamvu. Uma eseze la kithina, sithokoza kakhulu-ke.
Engikuthokozela kakhulu futhi mina ukuthi kuthe uma kuhamba uMnu uMushwana la ngambona, ngathi mina hhawu sekukhona isikhala njalo ngale. Uma sengimbona elapha ezogcina lesi sikhala, kimi kusho ukuthi wayekhonjwa ngumunwe wasezulwini; phela thina singomama bebhantshi.
Siyabonga kakhulu. Sethemba uzohlala kahle nathi. [Ihlombe.] (Tanslation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)
[We in the IFP are very glad to see our brother, Mr Mahlangu, whom we always saw in the place where the shootings used to occur. We are very happy that he has joined us.
Another thing that makes me happy is that when Mr Mushwana left, I saw Mr Mahlangu and I said to him: ``Hey! There is a vacancy there’’. Now when I see him coming to fill this position, to me it means that he was appointed by the finger from Heaven because I belong to the women of prayer.
Thank you very much. We hope that he will stay well with us. [Applause.]
Rre J O TLHAGALE: Motlotlegi modulasetilo, ke ema fano go tlhagisa kamogelo ya rona go motlotlegi rre Mahlangu jaaka Motlatsa Modulasetilo wa Ntlo e ya NCOP. Re dumela gore ka maitemogelo a a sephara a a nang le ona, o tlaa tsamaisa Ntlo e go e fitlhisa kwa mankalankaleng. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)
[Mr J O TLHAGALE: Hon Chairperson, I stand here to present our acceptance to the hon Mr Mahlangu as the Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP. We believe that, with his vast experience, he will lead this House to the top. [Applause.]]
Mr R M NYAKANE: Chairperson, I rise on behalf of the UDM to express our sentiments, which sentiments have also been expressed by other political parties, and to congratulate the hon member Mr M J Mahlangu on having attained his new position of Deputy Chairperson.
We trust and hope that he will uphold the trust and confidence that have been expressed by this House in appointing him to this position. We wish Mr M J Mahlangu good luck. We hope we are going to work with him as harmoniously as we did with the previous Deputy Chairperson. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Mr Durr, I take it the ACDP has spoken.
Mr K D S DURR: Madam Chair, on behalf of our party … [Inaudible.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Thank you. We therefore proceed to the questions on the Question Paper. Mr Mahlangu, would you like to say a word? [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr M J MAHLANGU: Chairperson, thank you very much for the warm words that have come from the members of the House. Let me thank you, Chairperson, for giving me one or two minutes to respond to the speeches which have been delivered by the members.
I wish to thank all hon members for congratulating me. When I was told by my party that it was deploying me here, I knew this was a great challenge. I know that there are no problems but, rather, challenges, and I also understand that with the support of everyone in this House one will have great success.
Above all, I also wish to thank my party for actually showing confidence in me by deploying me here to take up this post. I will serve all political parties in this House with great loyalty and will take forward the challenges posed by the post.
It is not a day for a speech today, but I just want to end by quoting a great writer, Helen Steiner Rice, who once wrote:
Life is a mixture of sunshine and rain, Laughter and pleasure, teardrops and pain, All days can’t be bright, but it’s certainly true, There was never a cloud the sun didn’t shine through.
So just keep on smiling whatever betide you, Secure in the knowledge God is always besides you, And you’ll find when you smile your day will be brighter And all of your burdens will seem so much lighter.
For each time you smile you will find it is true Somebody, somewhere will smile back at you, And nothing on earth can make life more worthwhile Than the sunshine and warmth of a beautiful smile.
I thank you all. I will do my best. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Thank you, Mr Mahlangu, and congratulations on your election. We look forward to working with you.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the House: That the Council -
(1) notes that South Africa, along with 11 other African states meeting in Abuja, have agreed in principle to subject their governments to monitoring and democracy in terms of the Nepad agreement, with particular reference to the promotion of good government, human rights and internationally accepted corporate practices;
(2) salutes these states on this step which will help to restore confidence in the future of Nepad and of Africa;
(3) urges all other African signatories to Nepad to follow suit as far as acceptance of the peer review process is concerned;
(4) supports the key role our country is playing in shaping the future of Africa; and
(5) commits itself to working towards the objectives of Nepad in South Africa and on the rest of the continent.
Me E C GOUWS: Voorsitter, ek is bewus dat die agb Minister van Sport hier in die Huis nou net onomwonde verklaar het dat hy nie oorweeg om uit sy amp te bedank nie, maar ek gaan tog voort met my mosie in der voege. ‘n Minister het ‘n verantwoordelikheid en behoort daardie verantwoordelikheid te alle tye en onder alle omstandighede teenoor al Suid-Afrika se mense gestand te doen.
Ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek by die volgende sitting van die Huis sal voorstel:
Dat die Raad -
(1) ‘n beroep op die Minister van Sport en Ontspanning doen om te bedank as gevolg van sy opmerkings en moontlike skending van menseregte in ‘n vergadering van die Verenigde Krieketraad; en (2) daarvan kennis neem dat -
(a) twee top Suid-Afrikaanse krieketspelers, Jacques Kallis, een van
die beste krieketspelers in die wêreld, en Mark Boucher,
onderkaptein van ons Proteas, se menseregte moontlik geskend is.
Klousule 9(3) van die Grondwet verbied diskriminasie deur die
Staat teen enige persoon op grond van ras; en
(b) die Minister van Sport en Ontspanning dus 'n verdelende en nie
'n saambindende faktor in Suid-Afrikaanse sport is nie. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Ms E C GOUWS: Chairperson, I am aware that the hon Minister of Sport has just now unequivocally declared in this House that he is not considering resigning from his post, but I still wish to continue with this motion accordingly. A Minister has a responsibility and ought to honour that responsibility at all times and under all circumstances to the people of South Africa.
I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move:
That the Council:
(1) appeals to the Minister of Sport and Recreation to resign because of his remarks and possible violation of human rights in a meeting of the United Cricket Board; and
(2) notes that -
(a) the human rights of two of South Africa's top cricket players,
Jacques Kallis, one of the best cricket players in the world and
Mark Boucher, vice captain of our Proteas, could possibly have
been violated. Section 9(3) of the Constitution prohibits
discrimination by the State against any person on the basis of
race; and
(b) the Minister of Sport and Recreation is therefore a divisive
rather than a binding factor in South African sport.]
MINISTER OF SPORT COMMENDED FOR HIS DEDICATIONAND DP's CRITICISMS
REJECTED
(Draft Resolution)
Mr P D N MALOYI: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) rejects with contempt the frivolous call by the DP for the resignation of the Minister of Sport and Recreation, Comrade Ngconde Balfour;
(2) believes that the Minister’s remarks should be seen in the context of the frustration experienced by the majority of South Africans at the slow pace of transformation and racism which is still characterising some of our national sporting codes;
(3) finds it strange that the DP has kept a stony silence over the racism in rugby that was pointed out by a former national player and current coach of our national Sevens side, Chester Williams; and
(4) commends the Minister of Sport and Recreation for his dedication and commitment to bringing about real transformation in South African sport.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Is there any objection to the motion? There is an objection. The motion therefore becomes a notice of motion.
CONDEMNATION OF INFANT RAPE
(Draft Resolution)
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I move without notice: That the Council -
(1) takes note -
(a) of yet another infant rape, merely a year after the rape of
baby Tsepang in Upington; and
(b) that Mpo, a 5-month-old girl, was slaughtered yesterday in
Hillbrow by a criminal with the mentality of an animal;
(2) further condemns this act in the strongest possible way and urges the police and the community to act swiftly; and
(3) requests the South African judicial system to make an example of this perpetrator who not only destroyed the physical and spiritual life of a defenceless baby, but also degraded the dignity and reputation of men in general and disgraced the total human race.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
GOOD WISHES TO ALL MUSLIMS DURING RAMADAN
(Draft Resolution)
Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) Muslims across the world are about to celebrate the month of
Ramadan;
(b) the month of Ramadan marks the month in 610 A.D. when the Holy
Qur'an was sent down as a guide to humankind for guidance and
judgement between right and wrong;
(c) for Muslims across the world it is a time for inner reflection,
devotion to God and self-control; and
(d) Ramadan is not only a month of moral abstinence, but it also has
the social virtue of creating new bonds of understanding between
people by reminding the more fortunate of the hunger that the
poor suffer; and
(2) wishes our Muslim brothers and sisters well during their celebration.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
GOOD WISHES TO OUR HINDU POPULATION DURING DIWALI
(Draft Resolution)
Mr M A SULLIMAN: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that yesterday Monday, 4 November 2002, marked the beginning of Diwali, which is one of the most popular Hindu festivals;
(2) further notes that Diwali, also known as the festival of lights, symbolises the victory of righteousness and the lifting of spiritual darkness; and
(3) as a sign of respect for our rich and diversified cultural heritage, wishes our Hindu population well during their festival.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NEW DEPUTY MINISTERS
(Draft Resolution)
Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, I move without notice:
Dat die Raad die nuwe Adjunkministers, Renier Schoeman en David Malatsi, gelukwens met hulle aanstelling as sodanig en hulle die beste toewens in hulle nuwe verantwoordelikhede. ((Translation of draft resolution follows.)
[That the Council congratulates the new Deputy Ministers, Renier Schoeman and David Malatsi, on their appointments in that capacity and wishes them well with their new responsibilities.]
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
PRECEDENCE TO THE FOURTH AND FIFTH ORDERS
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That, after the first Order of the Day, precedence be given to the fourth and fifth Orders of the Day. Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
COMMITMENT OF WESTERN CAPE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO ASSISTING
DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS APPLAUDED
(Draft Resolution)
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that the Western Cape Department of Education has undertaken to help Hector Peterson Senior Secondary matriculants who lost all their possessions, including their books and notes in a fire that destroyed their homes last weekend;
(2) further notes that more than 300 homes in the Mooi Trap informal settlement in Kraaifontein went up in flames on Saturday leaving hundreds of people homeless; (3) believes that the Western Cape Department of Education is going to make special arrangements for the matriculants who have lost their notes and examination barcodes; and
(4) therefore applauds the Department of Education for its commitment to assist the disadvantaged students in the Western Cape.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
SPRINGBOKS WISHED SUCCESS IN INTERNATIONAL MATCHES
(Draft Resolution)
Mr N M RAJU: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) wishes coach Rudolf Straeuli, Captain Corné Krige and the national Springboks every success against the international teams of France, Scotland and England in the coming weeks; and
(2) believes that all South Africans of all colours will be rooting for the Springboks, as always.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
REGULATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS AND PROVISION OF COMMUNICATION- RELATED INFORMATION BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report of Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs thereon)
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Chairperson, it is noteworthy that during the last decade we have seen tremendous and worldwide changes taking place in the communications industry. Here, I think for example of telecommunications, such as cellular, satellite and computer communications.
In South Africa the growth of the cellular communications industry has surpassed all expectations. These changes in communications technologies have already had a significant impact on many aspects of life and have transformed the world into a global village.
This has resulted in improved living standards, and has also provided communications in rural and other areas for which easy forms of communication were previously inaccessible. Furthermore, a large portion of the business sector relies to a large extent on technology and communications for its operations.
However, the activities of criminal organisations and syndicates are also enhanced by technology in the communications area. Criminal elements are using all types of communications extensively, which include cellular phones, satellite-based phones, e-mail, the Internet, etc, not only in the planning of crimes, but also in the perpetration of crimes such as highway heists and in terrorism, often with military precision.
The interception of communications is an essential part of dismantling and tackling criminal organisations and syndicates and in the investigation of all kinds of smuggling, whether related to contraband in general or to drugs, arms, ammunition and explosives.
In South Africa we need only think about illicit drug laboratories; the trafficking in drugs where South Africa is used as a transit country to Europe and elsewhere; and the trafficking of cannabis produced in South Africa and surrounding states; as well as the trafficking in drugs, such as Mandrax, to South Africa.
Our infrastructure also provides excellent communications facilities to plan and execute acts of terrorism. We know of instances in which cellular phones have even been used as part of the detonation devices of terrorist bombs. Law-enforcement agencies worldwide have developed various techniques in utilising information, such as call-related information, for the interception of communications.
The Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act of 1992, which came into operation on 1 February 1993, prohibits the interception of communications which are transmitted over a telecommunications line if such interception takes place intentionally and without the knowledge or permission of the dispatcher. It also prohibits the intentional monitoring of conversations or communications so as to gather confidential information concerning any person, body or organisation.
However, provision is made for the interception of postal articles and communications and for the monitoring of conversations or communications in cases of serious offences or if the security of the Republic is threatened.
As a result of the technological developments in the communications industries, which I have referred to, the existing Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act of 1992 has become wholly inadequate to cope with modern circumstances. Furthermore, since that Act came into operation there have been considerable legal developments throughout the world regarding the interception and monitoring of communications, developments influenced by technology and financial considerations. It also became clear that if the existing interception powers of law-enforcement agencies are not to be seriously handicapped by the growth of new technologies, it would be necessary to extend the scope of the existing interception legislation in order to include all types of communications.
If the power of law-enforcement agencies to intercept communications is not extended to include all modern types of communications, there is a risk that any criminally minded individual could use a communications method which falls outside the ambit of the existing Act, thereby making it difficult, if not impossible, for law enforcement to lawfully intercept his or her communications. For example, the use of encryption technology may place criminal communications beyond the reach of law-enforcement agencies. These circumstances led to the SA Law Commission being requested to investigate the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act of 1992 as part of its review of security legislation.
The Interception and Monitoring Bill of 2001, as originally introduced to Parliament, emanated from the SA Law Commission’s report on that investigation. The Bill is, to a large extent, based on interception legislation of countries such as the United States of America, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. The principle object of the Bill is to provide a comprehensive framework for the interception of communications, the monitoring of signals and radio frequency spectrums and the provision of communication-related information.
The Bill has been drafted in such a manner that it covers all currently known types of communications and it also attempts to provide for future developments. The Bill makes provision for proper co-operation between the law-enforcement agencies and certain key groups in the business sector, for example telecommunications service providers such as Telkom, MTN, Cell C and Vodacom, and Internet service providers and postal service providers in respect of the interception of communications. However, it is expected that other groups will be affected in the longer term as innovations are introduced in the communications market.
Syndicates and organised crime pose a serious threat not only to the safety of our community, but also to the public health or safety, national security and compelling national economic interests of the Republic. It is for that reason that this piece of legislation affirms Government’s intolerance in respect of the commission of serious offences and other organised criminal activities committed by syndicates and organised crime members, and provides, as far as possible, law-enforcement agencies with a powerful and effective tool in combating serious crime and investigating threats to the public health or safety, national security or compelling national economic interests of the Republic. I would like to make use of this opportunity to thank the chairperson of the select committee, Kgoshi Mokoena, and the members of that committee for the hard work they have done in considering this legislation.
I have noted the amendments to the Bill which are being proposed in the select committee’s report on the Bill. I am particularly delighted to see that some of those amendments attempt to address a major concern among the telecommunications service providers, namely that, for instance, clause 30 of the Bill could be interpreted as empowering the Minister of Communications to prescribe to them the specific brands, designs or types of facilities and devices to be acquired or systems to be used.
I am personally convinced that the proposed amendments make it clear that it is not Government’s intention to interfere with telecommunications service providers’ discretion relating to the brand, design or type of facilities and devices that they want to acquire or the systems that they want to use, as long as such facilities, devices and systems comply with all the requirements of the law-enforcement agencies.
I want to conclude by remarking that the theory that crime follows opportunity has become established wisdom in criminology. One of the fundamental principles of crime prevention, to which this Bill seeks to give effect, is to reduce such opportunity. [Applause.]
Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, the question of crime is a worrying factor in any society. When technology advances, criminals also use the very same technology to commit crime. What worries some of us is that these criminals have gone further by using our kids at school in committing some of crimes. As Government there is no way we can allow these criminals to commit this crime. In one way or another we have to flush them out. Let us do it, because we can.
This final draft of the Bill came about as a result of the efforts and contributions of many people, for example service providers, departments, individuals and many other stakeholders. I have heard some of my colleagues
- committee chairpersons - complaining in the corridors that, at times, it was very difficult to get hold of their Ministers when they needed to consult them.
I am happy to announce in this House that my magnificent, evergreen, calculated, cool and dynamic Minister has always been available when I need him. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] At times, I would call him at awkward hours, but he was still able to give me educated advice. I say thank you to the Minister. Oh what a leader! He is a leader who knows the way, goes the way and shows the way.
Here is a Bill before us which seeks to counter any wrong moves by criminals. The Interception and Monitoring Bill, as it is commonly known, has come about as a result of technological advances in respect of telecommunications, such as cellular phones and satellites, as well as computer communications through e-mail and the electronic transfer of information and data.
Members will remember that in 1992 the South African Government passed into law the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act, Act 127 of 1992. This Act prohibited the interception and monitoring of communications without an order of a judge. It focused primarily on telephone communications, but also provided for the interception of monitoring of postal communications.
This Bill aims to regulate the authorised monitoring and interception of communications, particularly with respect to the Internet and cellular networks. It further provides that no service provider shall provide any telecommunications service which does not have the capacity to be monitored.
The Bill also states that service providers must acquire the necessary facilities and devices to enable the monitoring of communications in terms of this Bill. Obviously, the costs incurred in acquiring such equipment, the technical maintenance thereof and the continued operating costs, are to be borne by the communications service provider. There was some uncertainty about an individual’s right to privacy in terms of this Bill. There is no need to panic. Law-enforcement agencies or officials will not just intercept or monitor without authorisation by a judge. There are some steps to be taken before intercepting or monitoring can take place. But let us be realistic. What would be the use of having such a piece of legislation if perpetrators will have to be told that their communications are being intercepted or monitored? That would be like making a scary face at a baby.
This Bill makes it explicitly clear that an individual’s right to privacy will be respected, and will only be infringed under specific and compelling circumstances. Owing to the fact that there have also been considerable legal developments throughout the world regarding the interception and monitoring of communications, telecommunications are being used increasingly in the commission of especially organised crime, in heists and in other serious violent crimes, as my hon Minister has said.
Therefore, the limitations envisaged in the Bill will in no way deprive South Africans of their privacy, but will be a signal to criminals that our Government will be able to monitor criminals who use telecommunications, such as cellular and satellite communications, and the electronic transfer of information and data as their forms of communication.
The Bill also requires that telecommunications and Internet access companies positively identify and keep proper records of all clients to whom a telecommunications service is provided. This information will be made available to the law-enforcement officials when required. Criminal sanctions will apply for failing to comply with the provisions of this Bill.
At the same time, no service provider should make information of this nature available without having the necessary documentation or application presented by law-enforcement officials.
We support the view that service providers develop privacy policies that clearly state to their customers under what conditions their information privacy rights will be violated, providing that the necessary documentation and procedures are complied with. Under circumstances in which an individual intercepts or monitors a communication in accordance with the directive issued under the Act, he or she will not be guilty of an offence and should be indemnified from any action taken by the customer against him or her.
We are dealing with a very complicated issue in this Bill, for example as to how law-enforcement officials make oral application for interception and monitoring. After having done that, they must, after 12 hours, submit a written application. Interestingly, the judge can also give oral direction and allow interception and monitoring to be carried out. This can only happen in the case of an emergency.
There was a concern that this Bill puts a heavy burden on small service providers in rural areas who will be expected to have all the necessary and sophisticated equipment, as required by this Bill. They need not panic, because that has been taken care of. There is a provision for the Minister to exempt them from meeting some of the requirements. To add to that, even tried and tested service providers can also apply or ask to be exempted from some of these requirements.
I want briefly to touch on the famous clause 30. After long discussions, wide consultation and interaction with service providers and other stakeholders, this clause is now crafted in such a way that it is now acceptable to all parties. Unlike before, the Minister will only prescribe the security and technical and functional requirements of the facilities and devices to be acquired in terms of this Bill.
This is one of those substantial amendments we are effecting in this Bill. What we need is for all devices that are going to be used by service providers to be interceptible in accordance with the requirements set out in this Bill. This was not easy, but we managed. It was taxing but we did not lose hope. All peace-loving South Africans will understand and support this Bill.
Let us allow law-enforcement officials to implement this piece of legislation by passing this Bill. I extend a word of appreciation to colleagues in this committee. As usual, and always, in whatever deliberations we engaged in, they put their country, South Africa, first. It is not surprising for me to say that I am very proud of them. We are going to support this Bill. [Applause.]
Ms J L KGOALI: Hon Chairperson, thank you for the opportunity to address this House. Hon Minister and colleagues, the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Bill that we are debating today will play a crucial role in strengthening the hand of our law-enforcement agencies in combating criminal activities in our country.
Whilst it is not clear how many interception warrants were issued in terms of the 1992 Act or how many persons were arrested who were involved in serious crime, one can only assume that some arrests did occur.
This Bill will help to maintain interception as a powerful tool in our armoury against crime, and will help to ensure stability in the country. Unfortunately, those who drafted this law some 10 years ago did not and could not have foreseen the extraordinary pace of change in the communications industry, especially in the past decade.
We are faced with a revolutionised communications industry and outdated legislation on interception. It is true that criminals have been quick to put the new technology to use with detrimental consequences for our country. Hence, there was a need to revise the current Act if we were to preserve the ability of our law-enforcement and intelligence services to prevent and detect organised crime and other cases of serious violent crime.
When this Bill was first released for public comment, many people were alarmed. They argued, and some still do, that this Bill would lead to the invasion of their constitutionally protected right to privacy. The fact is that this Bill is not intended to do something that is wrong for South Africans but, rather, to protect them. It is also not intended to create a Big-Brother-is-watching scenario. Far from that. The Bill is about the regulation of the monitoring and interception of communications from whatever source they may come, be they from the state or a private individual.
This Bill is about the establishment of a proper legal framework within the constitutional obligation of the state to help to detect and prevent crime, and this can only be done within the confines of the Bill of Rights.
As far as the ANC is concerned, the need to protect fundamental human rights was seen as just as important as the need to change the current outdated legislation.
While the revolution in communications technology was one of the key motivations behind the decision to change the law, so too was the need to protect fundamental human rights, particularly the right to privacy, not forgetting that it is this very ANC that has made it possible for all people in this country to have their rights respected. However, we also want to make sure that they do not violate their rights themselves.
This principle was uppermost in our minds when we deliberated on the new Bill. This is because, as an organisation, we are committed to the protection of human rights. We believe that the unchecked use of interception can have consequences for the rights of individuals.
With this Bill we intend putting interception on a statutory footing which will stand the test of constitutionality. We seek to ensure that the privacy of those who use communication networks is respected and that they have a means of redress if their communications are intercepted unlawfully.
What needs to be noted - and I am sure hon members even from the opposition parties, particularly the DP which is the party that makes a lot of noise at times - is that the efforts that have been made by the Justice Ministry and its department involved their carefully applying their minds to addressing the gaps, while, at the same time, strengthening the number of independent safeguards contained in the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act of 1992.
What is also important is that each interception direction must be authorised by a designated judge, and this judge must be satisfied that the granting of an interception direction is strictly necessary. Apart from needing approval by a judge to intercept communication, the interception agency is also subjected to tough scrutiny. The designated judge may, from time to time, request the interception agency to provide him or her with reports on the progress that has been made towards achieving the objectives for which the interception direction was granted.
What is also important is that if the interception agency fails to submit such progress reports, or the judge is satisfied that the objectives have been achieved for which the direction was issued, or the grounds on which the interception direction was issued no longer exist, the judge must cancel the interception direction.
This Bill is not intended to allow people to listen to any private conversation between two people. It is their right to communicate, but they must do so rightfully. However, the Bill makes it a punishable offence to do so if they are not communicating correctly. The Bill also ensures that interception directions or entry warrants may only be issued by a designated judge. I am emphasising this so that people do not feel threatened that their rights may be impeded.
Lastly, if one does the right thing, one need not fear. If one does not, one must watch out. [Applause.]
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, the Constitution sets out a number of rights that are enshrined and that enjoy different degrees of protection. The right to life, for example, is an absolute right. By contrast, the right to freedom is qualified in the sense that if a person commits a crime he or she may forfeit the right to freedom after due process in a court of law.
Section 14 of the Constitution provides that:
Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have -
(a) their person or home searched; (b) their property searched; (c) their possessions seized; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed.
In a perfect world, where everyone is a responsible, law-abiding citizen, the right to privacy would also be an absolute right. Sadly this is not true, as is evidenced by the recent series of bomb blasts in Soweto and Bronkhorstspruit.
In a country such as ours, where every person has protected political rights, these bomb blasts are nothing less than an attack on a constitutional state. In other words, our very foundation is being attacked. As a nation that has enshrined freedom and democracy in our Constitution, we not only have a right, but also a duty to protect and defend our Constitution.
The question then becomes: How do we protect our rights and freedoms without slipping from a free democracy into a controlled police state? In this regard the Constitution gives some guidance in section 36(1), which provides:
The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all the relevant factors, including -
(a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relationship between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
This is the test that the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Bill has to stand up to. The Bill prohibits all unlawful interceptions of communications, with certain well-defined exceptions.
Clauses 16, 17 and 18 of the Bill provide that an application for an interception direction, a real-time communication-related direction or a combined order must be a written application to a designated judge. Clause 19 provides that an application for archived communication-related direction must be made to a judge or a magistrate. All of these applications have fairly stringent requirements. The applicant will have to satisfy the designated judicial officer that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a serious offence has been or will probably be committed.
My party has some reservations about this Bill. The main concern is contained in clauses 30(4) and 30(5), which require telecommunications service providers to secure the equipment necessary to intercept communications at their own expense. One of the reasons why we are against this is that the cost will simply be passed on to consumers at the end of the day.
Finally, this Bill enables the state to combat crime and terrorism. It is necessary to protect our freedom. Despite the reservation referred to, the DP believes that this Bill does stand up to the test set out in section 36 of the Constitution and the DP therefore supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr P D N MALOYI: Chairperson, I think it is time for that hon member to wake up and listen. [Laughter.]
I, and my team of experts, Archie and them, thought, before debating this Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication- related Information Bill, that my capable chairperson, in conjunction with with my capable Minister, would have touched on a number of issues that are contained in this particular Bill.
The question is: If we are to debate it and we do not want to repeat what they have said, what is it that we need to say? The advice I received was that it would be imperative that we should refresh the memories of the Chairperson, Minister and members on the following. Firstly, on 25 August 1998 a restaurant called Planet Hollywood was bombed. Two people were killed and 26 injured. On 28 January 1999 there was an explosion outside a police station injuring 11 persons. On 9 May 1999 a car bomb again exploded outside a police station, and on 29 November 1999 a crowded pizzeria was bombed, injuring 46 people. A four-year-old girl had to have her foot amputated and a 20-year-old woman - very young - lost a leg. I was informed that this bomb had been set off by means of a cellphone.
Together with my team, we are of the opinion that without our sophisticated telecommunications network, cellphones, etc, those criminals would not have succeeded. We as Government, as the state, might have been able to do something to prevent some of these crimes.
I thought that I should pause, but let me proceed to refresh hon members’ memories. In August 1996 an amount of R21 million was stolen at a cash-in- transit depot in Pinetown near Durban. In 1997 an amount of R12 million was stolen from a cash depot in Pretoria, and in July 1997 an amount of R17,4 million was stolen from a security van in Bronkhorstspruit. These are just a few of the incidents I thought I should mention to refresh hon members’ memory. Last month, in October 2002, a series of bomb explosions rocked Soweto, killing one person and critically injuring another. Railway lines and places of worship were affected.
In all these incidents people were injured and others lost their lives. Therefore I think that as a democratic state, under the leadership of the ANC, we have a responsibility to prevent crime and to protect our people from the perpetrators of these violent acts. What we therefore seek to achieve through passing this Bill is to intercept communications so as to prevent crime and to assist all of us as South Africans to investigate what has happened and what is to happen.
Lastly, this Bill prohibits any unauthorised persons from intercepting any communications in the course of transmission. The hon Lever, the learned one, referred us to certain sections of the Constitution, and I appreciate that. It is therefore not opening the door to every Tom, Dick and Harry to intercept communications. It does not do that.
It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Justice, Kgoshi Mokoena or this House to assist in combating crime, but the responsibility of each and every South African. That includes the private sector.
If the DP says to us that they have problems with clause 30(4), are they saying to us that those telecommunications service providers do not have a responsibility to their customers - to me, for one, as I have a very nice cellphone, and hon members? Do they not have a responsibility to assist the state in ensuring that at the end of the day we bring all those criminals to book? [Applause.]
Mnr P A MATTHEE: Mnr die Voorsitter, misdaad, soos armoede, werkloosheid en MIV/vigs, is sonder twyfel een van die grootste probleme, indien nie dié grootste nie, wat ons land en die Suid-Afrikaanse nasie in die gesig staar. Ten spyte daarvan dat ons daarin slaag om die vlak van sekere kategorieë misdaad te stabiliseer en dié van sommige tipes selfs te laat daal, is die vlak van die meeste kategorieë misdaad in ons land veels te hoog en steeds geheel en al onaanvaarbaar.
Dit is daarom die plig en verantwoordelikheid van elke Suid-Afrikaner, soos die vorige spreker gesê het, en elke Suid-Afrikaanse onderneming om in hulle eie belang en in die belang van ons land en al sy mense daadwerklik betrokke te raak, en te bly, by die voorkoming en bekamping van hierdie smet van misdaad in ons samelewing om te verhoed dat dit die vreedsame, vooruitstrewende en veilige toekoms van ons en al ons kinders in hierdie potensieel beste land ter wêreld vernietig. Dit vra egter opofferings van almal, en in hierdie geval ook van die diensverskaffers van telekommunikasiedienste. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr P A MATTHEE: Mr Chairperson, crime, like poverty, unemployment and HIV/Aids, is without a doubt one of the greatest problems, if not the greatest one, facing our country and the South African nation. Despite the fact that we have succeeded in stabilising the level of certain categories of crime and that some types have even been reduced, the level of most categories of crime in our country is much too high and still completely unacceptable.
Therefore, it is the duty and responsibility of every South African, as the previous speaker said, as well as every South African enterprise, and it is in their own interests as well as the interests of our country and all its people, to become and to remain actively involved in the prevention and combating of this blot of crime on our society in order to prevent it from destroying the peaceful, progressive and safe future of ours and of all our children in this, potentially the best country in the world. However, this demands sacrifices of us all, and in this case also of the service providers of telecommunications services.]
Telecommunications are being used increasingly in the organisation and commission of especially organised crime, heists and other serious violent crimes. Unless the communication between members of crime syndicates can be intercepted and monitored effectively, we shall not be able to prevent and combat the crimes being committed by them. In fact, as the levels of communication between criminals improve, so the levels of crime will escalate. It is therefore of the utmost importance that our police and intelligence services be empowered to enable them effectively to intercept and monitor the conversations between criminals.
This Bill, as we have heard, imposes certain duties on telecommunication service providers and other persons, and the example referred to by Mr Lever as well as the previous speaker. True to their philosophy of standing on the sidewalks and criticising and saying the things they think will be popular among the voters without ever accepting any co-responsibility for anything in this country and wanting the Government alone to be solely responsible for the prevention and combating of crime, the eradication of poverty and other major challenges being faced by our country, the DP in the committee opposed this clause; just as they have indicated today they still have reservations about it, because they want the Government to bear the costs on their own.
This is the same DP philosophy which made the DP member of the National Assembly, Mrs Sono, say in that House last Thursday in a debate on poverty, inter alia, that the alleviation of poverty was the task of the Government, of the executive, not of Parliament. ``When the Government fails, as it has done, it is Parliament’s task to tell Government and also to tell the people that the Government has failed’’.
But co-responsibility coming from them? Never! [Interjections.] This is in line with a statement by one of their senior leaders: ``What is bad for the country is good for the DA.’’
We in the New NP, together with the Government and all South Africans and South African businesses who want to find solutions to the challenges of crime and poverty, accept co-responsibility for finding solutions to these problems and helping to address these problems in the interests of all South Africans. We are satisfied that we have in this committee, under the leadership of our chairperson, been able to strike the correct balance between what is required to be done by the service providers and what is required to be done by the Government.
We therefore have no hesitation in supporting this Bill, and we request all South Africans and all businesses in this country to support this, and not only to support this Bill, but to support the efforts to curb and prevent crime in this country; to eradicate poverty and to address all the major challenges that we are faced with as South Africans together. [Applause.]
Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, while we as the ANC recognise that the interception of communication is a highly intrusive activity which affects the privacy of the individual, we believe equally strongly that this Bill strikes the correct balance between the need to intercept communication and the right to privacy. The right to privacy is established by section 14 of our Constitution, which, however, also recognises that this right is not absolute, that there are circumstances in which it might be necessary for the state to limit this right.
Since the 1993 Act was enacted there have been enormous changes in the telecommunications and postal market in South Africa, and a great expansion in the nature and range of services available. There are a number of examples which indicate the extent to which communications have developed in our country.
Firstly, Telkom is currently the only telecommunications company offering fixed-line services. This is going to change soon when another fixed-line operator will be announced. Secondly, the cellphone industry in South Africa, which was virtually unheard of a few years ago, has also developed to such an extent that we now have three operators which have hundreds of thousands of subscribers. The numbers of these subscribers are continually growing.
Thirdly, the satellite telephone market, while it is still in its infancy, will evolve rapidly in the next few years. Fourthly, communications via the Internet or e-mail have grown dramatically in the past few years and this part of the market also continues to grow. It is estimated that there are close to 2,4 million Internet users currently in this country. Finally, the postal sector has also developed rapidly with a huge growth in the number of companies offering parcel and document delivery services.
We need to update our interception law to provide a clear statutory framework for authorising the disclosure of data held by telecommunications service providers. The Bill therefore provides that no person, postal service provider, telecommunications service provider or decryption key holder may disclose any information obtained in terms of the Bill.
The only times such information can be disclosed are when the information is required for evidence in court, investigation of a criminal proceeding or when it is required for the performance of functions in terms of the Bill.
This is clearly in line with our commitment to upholding the right not to have personal information disclosed and to restricting, as far as possible, an intrusion into the right to privacy. The Bill does not, as many others have pointed out, provide for the willy-nilly interception of communications. The communications must be justified in terms of the strict criteria which have been laid down in clause 16(5) of the Bill.
Our message as the ANC has been constant over the years and we repeat it now, that together with the private sector and every citizen of this country we shall continue to fight crime so that we are able to provide an environment that is conducive to prosperity in this country. We therefore support the Bill as laid down before us.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I rise essentially to thank hon members for what I think has been a very good debate on an otherwise very complex and technical Bill. I am particularly happy that all speakers have spoken in favour of the Bill.
I know and accept that interception and monitoring, by their very nature, are very intrusive. At the same time, of course, I am able to say to members of the public that we are not interested in any personal information. Therefore, the details regarding who sleeps with whom, where and when are of no interest to us. [Laughter.] One can communicate with whomever one wants to as far as those personal matters of the heart are concerned. We are not interested in them at all.
I am, indeed, intrigued by the reservations expressed by the hon member Mr Lever on behalf of the DP regarding clauses 30(4) and 30(5) of the Bill. I will illustrate my surprise by using one or two analogies.
When a person wants to operate a taxi service anywhere in the Republic, they must first and foremost have a licence to do so. In order for them to get a licence, they have to comply with certain basic requirements such as providing a serviceable and roadworthy motor vehicle. None of them has come to the Department of Transport and said: ``I want this licence and to get this licence I have to comply with these requirements. But in order for me to comply with these requirements, I want the state to buy the motor vehicle for me.’’ That does not happen. We do not buy spaza shops for spaza shop operators, we do not set up taverns for tavern operators, etc. Why should we do so in this instance? That is the question we all ought to ask. We told the industry that we were not going to do that.
There are two types of cost in that regard. The first one is the operational cost which we bear. When we do an interception we bear the cost ourselves. But, the second type of cost, namely the cost that people need to bear in order to comply with the basic requirements of this law, obviously and logically ought to be borne by those who want to provide services in this industry.
I do not think that Mr Mpahlwa and his department are sitting on large bucketsful of money that they dish out to people who want to participate in this industry. Even if they were, we would tell them it is not right to do so unless one is able to offer the same kind of assistance to all service providers in all industries. And we are not doing that in any area whatsoever, and we shall not make any exceptions.
I am not going to enter into the fray between them and our allies, the New NP, except that I am quite excited that they are now fighting. They were involved in a very unnatural dalliance in the post-1999 elections period, but, I must say, that has come to an end. They now have a very interesting fight between themselves. [Interjections.] We will watch the fight. Maybe that hon member should fight back; face them. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution. INSOLVENCY SECOND AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report of Select Committee thereon)
UMntwana B Z ZULU: Sihlalo namalungu ahloniphekile … [Prince B Z Zulu: Chairperson and hon members … ]
… one has to look at the latest amendment to the Insolvency Act against the background of our Government’s commitment to promoting greater economic growth within the framework of sound industrial relations. This commitment requires that the Government strike the right balance between the need to create the conditions for accelerated economic growth and the need to put in place sufficient safeguards to protect the interests of workers.
It is an unfortunate reality of all competitive and open-market economies that companies do not always retain their liquidity. Liquidation of a company can have severe consequences for workers, particularly in the form of job losses.
Our current insolvency laws do not provide adequate protection for workers in order to mitigate the losses that they have to bear in the event of the liquidation of their employer. Employers often do not inform workers timeously of the potential liquidation. In fact, notice of provisional liquidation applications are rarely served on workers, with most only being informed once the provisional order has been granted. This is because neither employees nor their trade union have any right to be notified of legal proceedings which may result in the insolvency of their employer.
The Bill attempts to address these shortcomings by giving procedural rights to employees of insolvent employers or their representatives, such as their trade unions, to be notified of the institution of legal proceedings to sequestrate or liquidate an employer.
The proposed amendment relates to section 4,9 and 11 of the Insolvency Act. In terms thereof a right is created for employees and their trade unions to receive notice of proceedings and to be served with any order issued by the court where there are voluntary or compulsory sequestration or liquidation proceedings. The person bringing the application is, in terms of the proposed amendment, obliged to serve a copy of the notice on any registered trade union that represents the employees of that employer, and must also display a copy thereof on the employer’s premises in a place to which employees have access. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill, subject to proposed amendments, agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report by Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs thereon) Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, will you allow me to present the hon Mr Horne’s speech on his behalf? He had to leave the Council because of unforeseen circumstances.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: (Mr M J Mahlangu): Continue, hon member.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, on his behalf …
Artikel 23(7)(a) van Wet 38 van 1927 het bepaal dat ten opsigte van die boedel van enige swart persoon wat gesterf het sonder ‘n geldige testament, die aanstelling van ‘n eksekuteur nie nodig was nie, omdat die Meester van die Hoërhof nie enige magte het ten opsigte van die bereddering en verdeling van sodanige boedel nie.
In die saak van Moseneke v die Meester het die Konstitusionele Hof bevind dat hierdie artikel ongrondwetlik en ongeldig is met onmiddellike effek. Die Konstitusionele Hof het ook bevind dat regulasie 3(1) van R200 in die Staatskoerant nommer 10601 van 6 Februarie 1987 ongeldig is, maar het hierdie bevel van ongeldigheid opgeskort tot 6 Desember 2002.
Die Konstitusionele Hof het beveel dat die regulasie geïnterpreteer moet word om te beteken dat begunstigdes van ‘n boedel van ‘n afgestorwe swart persoon kan kies om die boedel aan ‘n landdros of die Meester te rapporteer. Die rapportering van sodanige intestate boedels van swart persone was voorheen beperk tot landdroskantore. Die hof het beklemtoon dat die besluit net betrekking het op boedels wat onder die gemenereg val, en nie boedels wat in gevolge die gewoontereg vererf is nie.
Die SA Regskommissie het amptelik hulle ondersoek na die gewoontereg ten opsigte van erfopvolging afgehandel, maar hulle aanbevelings in hierdie verband sal nie betyds beskikbaar wees om die sperdatum van die Konstitusionele Hof te haal nie. Die reg van erfopvolging bepaal die begunstigdes van ‘n bestorwe boedel en hulle regte, terwyl die reëls met betrekking tot die bereddering van boedels die prosedures vir die bereddering daarvan voorskryf. Met ander woorde: Hoe om die krediteure te betaal en die voordele aan die begunstigdes oor te dra.
Ingevolge die gewoontereg, waar ‘n begunstigde die posisie van die oorledene inneem, is daar geen duidelike onderskeid tussen die reëls vir die bereddering van boedels en die reëls van erfopvolging nie. Hangend die finalisering van die SA Regskommissie se hersiening van die gewoontereg, word geen veranderings voorgestel ten opsigte van die bereddering van boedels wat ingevolge die gewoontereg vererf nie.
Die Konstitusionele Hof het in die Moseneke-saak ten besluite gesê dat die voordele van die bereddering van bestorwe boedels deur landdroste, soos gerief en lae koste, ook bereik kan word deur ‘n nie-diskriminerende bepaling. Na sorgvuldige oorweging van al die moontlikhede, het die Departement van Justisie en Staatkundige Ontwikkeling besluit die beste manier om die voordele van sentrale rekords en beheer te bereik, sowel as die toeganklikheid deur en bystand vir persone op grondvlak, is om die bereddering van alle boedels onder die beheer van die Meester te plaas, maar om sekere dienspunte aan te wys waar beamptes van die departement die nodige funksies ten opsigte van die bereddering van boedels sal uitoefen namens, en onder beheer van, die Meester.
Klousule 1 van hierdie wetsontwerp stel ‘n nuwe artikel 2A vir Wet 66 van 1965 voor om hiervoor voorsiening te maak. As ‘n tussentydse maatreël totdat die SA Regskommissie se hersiening van die gewoontereg ten opsigte van erfopvolging afgehandel is, word voorgestel dat alle bestorwe boedels, wat nie volgens die gewoontereg vererf nie, onder die beheer van die Meester beredder moet word. Hierdie wetsontwerp maak dit duidelik dat die Meester geen jurisdiksie of funksie sal hê ten opsigte van bestorwe boedels wat volgens die gewoontereg vererf nie.
Reëlings sal getref word vir die herroeping van die voormelde regulasie om saam te val met die inwerkingtreding van hierdie wetsontwerp. Gebaseer op die statistiek en inligting vanaf beamptes wat tans die funksie ten opsigte van die bereddering van boedels by landdroskantore hanteer, sal beamptes aangewys word by dienspunte om nie-nodige magte en funksies namens, en onder beheer van, die Meester uit te oefen.
Hierdie beamptes sal byvoorbeeld aanstellings kan maak in toepaslike klein boedels, vergaderings van begunstigdes kan hou en bystand kan verleen met die afhandeling van klein boedels. In sommige gevalle sal hulle bloot dokumente deurgee na die Meester en behulpsaam wees met navrae. Hierdie wetsontwerp gee uitvoering aan die uitspraak van die Konstitusionele Hof, en raak nou ontslae van ‘n artikel van die bestaande wet wat neergekom het op diskriminasie op grond van velkleur.
Die komitee het die wetsontwerp eenparig gesteun, en ek vra nou hierdie Raad om dieselfde te doen. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Section 23(7)(a) of Act 38 of 1927 provided that, with regard to the estate of any black person who died without a valid will, the appointment of an executor was not necessary because the Master of the High Court did not have any powers with regard to the administration and division of such estate.
In the case of Moseneke v the Master, the Constitutional Court found that this section was unconstitutional and invalid with immediate effect. The Constitutional Court also found that regulation 3(1) of R200 in Gazette No 10601 of 6 February 1987 was invalid, but suspended this order of invalidity until 6 December 2002.
The Constitutional Court ordered that the regulation should be interpreted to mean that beneficiaries of an estate of a deceased black person can choose to report the estate to a magistrate or the Master. The reporting of such intestate estates of black people was previously restricted to magistrates’ offices. The court emphasised that their decision only applied to estates which fell under common law, and not estates devolved according to customary law.
The SA Law Commission officially concluded their investigation into customary law with regard to succession, but their recommendations in this regard will not be available in time to reach the cut-off date of the Constitutional Court. The law of succession determines the beneficiaries of a deceased estate and their rights, while the rules with regard to the administration of estates prescribe the procedures for the administration thereof. In other words: How to pay the creditors and to transfer the benefits to the beneficiaries.
In terms of customary law, where a beneficiary takes the position of the deceased, there is no clear distinction between the rules for the administration of estates and the rules for succession. Pending the finalisation of the SA Law Commission’s review of customary law, no changes are proposed with regard to the administration of estates in terms of customary law.
In the Moseneke case the Constitutional Court said in its findings that the benefits of the administration of deceased estates by magistrates, such as convenience and low costs, can also be achieved through a nondiscriminatory provision. After thorough consideration of all the possibilities, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development decided that the best way to achieve the benefits of central records and control, as well as accessibility by and support for people on the ground, is to place the administration of all estates under the control of the Master, but to designate certain service points where officials of the department will exercise the necessary functions with regard to the administration of estates on behalf of, and under the control of the Master.
Clause 1 of this Bill proposes a new section 2A for Act 66 of 1965 to make provision for this. As an interim measure until the SA Law Commission’s review of customary law with regard to succession has been completed, it is proposed that all deceased estates, which have not been devolved according to customary law, must be administered under the control of the Master. This Bill makes it clear that the Master will have no jurisdiction or function with regard to deceased estates devolved according to customary law.
Arrangements will be made for the repeal of the aforementioned regulation to coincide with the coming into operation of this Bill. Based on statistics and information from officials who currently deal with the function regarding the administration of estates by magistrate’s offices, officials will be appointed at service points to exercise nonessential powers and functions on behalf of and under the control of the Master.
These officials will, for example, be able to issue appointments in appropriate small estates, be able to hold meetings of beneficiaries and be able to render assistance with the settling of small estates. In some cases they will merely convey documents to the Master and be of assistance with enquiries. This Bill implements the ruling of the Constitutional Court, and now gets rid of a section of the existing Act which amounts to discrimination on the basis of skin colour.
The committee supported the Bill unanimously, and I now ask this Council to do the same.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
FINANCE BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report of Select Committee on Finance
thereon)
Mr Z S KOLWENI: Chairperson, hon Minister and members of the House, the objective of the Finance Bill is to give effect to the resolutions of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, specifically that unauthorised expenditure be authorised.
Clause 1 of the Bill informs us that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts recommends authorisation by Parliament of unauthorised expenditure of almost R410 million. This is directly charged against the National Revenue Fund. The unauthorised expenditure is described fully in the reports of the Auditor-General. Clause 2 of the Bill refers to unauthorised expenditure that is a consequence of the overspending of Votes.
These cases were considered by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and, after intense deliberation, were recommended for authorisation. If the proposal to authorise is passed by Parliament, the amounts overspent will form direct charges against the National Revenue Fund. The unauthorised expenditure amounts to little over R250 million.
Clause 3 proposes the authorisation of unauthorised expenditure for which no refunds will be made. Clause 4, however, stipulates that action to recover money continue.
This section 77 Bill has financial implications for the state. The amount of R250,355 million will have to be financed from the National Revenue Fund as it must cover the overspending in the Votes concerned.
Finally, as this Bill contains provisions that propose direct charges against the National Revenue Fund, it is dealt with in accordance with the procedures established by section 77 of the Constitution. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
AGRICULTURAL DEBT MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report of Select Committee on Land and
Environmental Affairs thereon)
Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson and hon members, I rise to make a statement on the Agricultural Debt Management Amendment Bill today, 5 November 2002.
The amendment brought to this committee was essentially to change section 9(1) of the Agricultural Debt Management Act, Act 45 of 2001. The Chief Registrar of Deeds believed that this section, in its current state, was in conflict with the provisions of the Deeds Registries Act of 1937.
It seems that section 9(1) of the Agricultural Debt Management Act of 2001 only allows an official from the Deeds Registry to lodge documentation for registration. It does not allow for the framing of mortgage bonds, agreements, consents, authorisations and other documentation by officials of the Department of Agriculture. This oversight has severely inhibited officials from the Department of Agriculture. It was therefore seen as a matter of urgency that the issue be rectified.
The new amending Bill, therefore, seeks to give the necessary authority to the Department of Agriculture to exercise all the responsibilities related to mortgage bonds, agreements, consents, authorisations and other documentation tendered for the purposes of the Agricultural Debt Management Act, Act 45 of 2001. This amendment, though small and technical, will ensure that there is no unnecessary expenditure or wastage by the state. Our committee agrees with the amendment as proposed. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Declaration of vote:
Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Voorsitter, ek wil dit namens die Nuwe NP stel dat ons hierdie wysingingswetsontwerp steun. Ons doen ‘n beroep op die departement om die prosedures so spoedig moontlik in plek te kry om die geld wat geïn word weer beskikbaar te stel vir gemeenskapsontwikkeling. Hierdie Huis en die gemeenskappe daar buite moet deeglik ingelig word oor hoe dit gedoen moet word.
Die Nuwe NP steun hierdie wysingswetsontwerp. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, on behalf of the New NP, I wish to state that we support this amending Bill. We appeal to the department to get the procedures in place as soon as possible so that the money that is recovered is made available again for community development. This House and the communities out there must be thoroughly informed regarding how it should be done.
The New NP supports this amending Bill.]
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
The Council adjourned at 17:19. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
FRIDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson: (1) The Minister of Trade and Industry submitted the Wysigingswetsontwerp op Handelswaremerke [W 63 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75) to the Speaker and the Chairperson on 1 November 2002. This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill [B 63 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:
Annual Report and Financial Statements of the National Agricultural
Marketing Council for 2001-2002, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the financial statements for 2001-2002 [RP 5-2002].
National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Chairperson:
The Sixth Report on the Provinces to the President from the Minister of
Education, Professor Kader Asmal, MP, September 2002.
To be referred to the Select Committee on Education and Recreation for
consideration and report.
MONDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Assent by the President of the Republic in respect of the
following Bills:
(a) Mental Health Care Bill [B 69D - 2001] - Act No 17 of 2002
(assented to and signed by President on 28 October 2002);
(b) Reinstatement of Enrolment of Certain Deceased Legal
Practitioners Bill [B 6B - 2002] - Act No 32 of 2002
(assented to and signed by President on 28 October 2002);
(c) Insolvency Amendment Bill [B 14B - 2002] - Act No 33 of
2002 (assented to and signed by President on 28 October
2002);
(d) Probation Services Amendment Bill [B 18D - 2002] - Act No
35 of 2002 (assented to and signed by President on 31
October 2002);
(e) Planning Profession Bill [B 76B - 2001] - Act No 36 of
2002 (assented to and signed by President on 31 October
2002); and
(f) State Information Technology Agency Amendment Bill [B 24B
- 2002] - Act No 38 of 2002 (assented to and signed by
President on 31 October 2002).
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
The following paper has been tabled and is now referred to the relevant
committee as mentioned below:
(1) The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on Land
and Environmental Affairs:
Annual Report and Financial Statements of the National
Agricultural Marketing Council for 2001-2002, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2001-2002
[RP 5-2002].
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Transport:
Bilateral Air Services Agreement between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Mali, tabled in
terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
- The Minister of Trade and Industry:
Report and Financial Statements of the Support Program for Industrial
Innovation for 2001-2002.
- The Minister of Labour:
Report and Financial Statements of the National Economic Development
and Labour Council (NEDLAC) for 2001-2002.
National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Chairperson:
Report of the Visit of the National Council of Provinces to the Eastern
Cape Province from 31 July 2002 to 2 August 2002 [executive summary]:
TUESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) The President has in terms of section 93(1)(a) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 of
1996), appointed Mr Renier Stephanus Schoeman as Deputy Minister
of Health with effect from 4 November 2002.
(2) The President has in terms of section 93(1)(b) of the
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No 108 of
1996), appointed Mr David Mickey Malatsi as Deputy Minister of
Social Development with effect from 4 November 2002.
National Council of Provinces:
- The Chairperson:
(1) The vacancy in the representation of the Northern Province which
occurred owing to the resignation of Mr M L Mushwana with effect
from 31 October 2002 has been filled with effect from 31 October
2002 by the appointment of Mr M J Mahlangu.
(2) Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces:
Bills passed by National Assembly on 5 November 2002 and
transmitted for concurrence:
(i) Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill [B 63B - 2002] (National
Assembly - sec 75) (referred to Select Committee on
Economic and Foreign Affairs).
(ii) Patents Amendment Bill [B 64 - 2002] (National Assembly -
sec 75) (referred to Select Committee on Economic and
Foreign Affairs).
(3) Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 5 November
2002: To be submitted to President of the Republic for assent:
(i) Agricultural Debt Management Amendment Bill [B 45 - 2002]
(National Assembly - sec 75).
(ii) Finance Bill [B 48 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 77).
(iii) Administration of Estates Amendment Bill [B 54B - 2002]
(National Assembly - sec 75).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Research
Foundation for 2001-2002, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2001-2002.
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the Foundation for Education,
Science and Technology for 2001-2002, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2001-2002 [RP 131-
2002].
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Council of Provinces:
- Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Amendment Bill [B 41B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 5 November 2002:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having
considered the subject of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of
Unfair Discrimination Amendment Bill [B 41B - 2002] (National Assembly
- sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
- Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Promotion of Administrative Justice Amendment Bill [B 46B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 5 November 2002:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having
considered the subject of the Promotion of Administrative Justice
Amendment Bill [B 46B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to
it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
- Report of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs on the Promotion of Access to Information Amendment Bill [B 60 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 5 November 2002:
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having
considered the subject of the Promotion of Access to Information
Amendment Bill [B 60 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to
it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
- Report of the Select Committee on Education and Recreation on the Higher Education Amendment Bill [B 30B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 5 November 2002:
The Select Committee on Education and Recreation, having considered the
subject of the Higher Education Amendment Bill [B 30B - 2002] (National
Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports the Bill with a proposed
amendment, as follows:
CLAUSE 5
1. On page 5, after line 35, to insert:
(f) by the substitution for subsection (8) of the following
subsection:
(8) The [four] members contemplated in subsection
(7)(b) -
(a) must be appointed by the Minister from nominations
received from the public higher education
institutions concerned; and
(b) may not include any member of staff, or student,
from the public higher education institutions
concerned.".
-
Report of the Select Committee on Education and Recreation on the Education Laws Amendment Bill [B 31B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 5 November 2002:
The Select Committee on Education and Recreation, having considered the subject of the Education Laws Amendment Bill [B 31B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 76), referred to it, reports the Bill without amendment.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Social Services on the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill [B 37B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 5 November 2002:
The Select Committee on Social Services, having considered the subject of the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill [B 37B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports the Bill with proposed amendments, as follows:
CLAUSE 1
-
On page 2, from line 10, to omit paragraph (a) and to substitute:
(a) by the substitution for the definition of “broker” of the following definition: “-
broker' means a person whose business, or part thereof, entails providing broker services, but does not include - (i) an employer or employer representative who provides service or advice exclusively to the employees of that employer; (ii) a trade union or trade union representative who provides service or advice exclusively to members of that trade union; or (iii) a person who provides service or advice exclusively for the purposes of performing his or her normal functions as a trustee, principal officer, employee or administrator of a medical scheme, unless a person referred to in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii) elects to be accredited as a broker, or actively markets or canvasses for membership of a medical scheme."; and (b) by the insertion, before the definition of "business of a medical scheme", of the following definition: "broker services’ means- (a) the provision of service or advice in respect of the introduction or admission of members to a medical scheme; or (b) the ongoing provision of service or advice in respect of access to, or benefits or services offered by, a medical scheme;”.CLAUSE 2 -
On page 2, from line 25, to omit paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and to substitute:
(a) by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection: “(1) No person may act or offer to act as a broker unless the Council has granted accreditation to such a person on payment of such fees as may be prescribed.”; (b) by the substitution for subsection (2) of the following subsection: (2) The Minister may prescribe the amount of the compensation which, the category of brokers to whom, the conditions upon which, and any other circumstances under which, a medical scheme may compensate any broker [in terms of subsection (1)].”; (c) by the substitution for subsection (3) of the following subsection: (3) No [person] broker shall be compensated for providing broker services [relating to the introduction or admission of a member to a medical scheme in terms of subsection (1)] unless the Council has granted accreditation to [a person on payment of such fees and on submission of such information as may be prescribed] such broker in terms of subsection (1).”; and (d) by the substitution for subsection (6) of the following subsection: “(6) A broker may not be directly or indirectly compensated for providing broker services by any person other than- (a) a medical scheme; (b) a member or prospective member, or the employer of such member or prospective member, in respect of whom such broker services are provided; or (c) a broker employing such broker.”.
LONG TITLE -
On page 2, in the first line, to omit “so as to broaden” and to substitute “in relation to broadening”.
-
On page 2, from the first line, to omit “, in order to provide for” and to substitute “and”.
-
-
Report of the Select Committee on Social Services on the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Amendment Bill [B 39B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 5 November 2002:
The Select Committee on Social Services, having considered the subject of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Amendment Bill [B 39B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports that it has agreed to the Bill.
-
Report of the Select Committee on Public Services on the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Amendment Bill [B 42B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 5 November 2002:
The Select Committee on Public Services, having considered the subject of the Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Amendment Bill [B 42B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 76), referred to it, reports the Bill with amendments [B 42C - 2002].
-
Report of the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill [B 34B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 4 November 2002:
The Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises, having considered the subject of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill [B 34B - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it, reports the Bill with proposed amendments, as follows:
CLAUSE 1
-
On page 3, in line 44, to omit “7” and to substitute “[7] 8A”.
-
On page 3, in line 48, to omit “7(1)” and to substitute “8A(1)”.
-
On page 3, in line 55 , to omit “of item 11”.
-
On page 4, in line 30, to omit “broadcasting”.
-
On page 4, in line 35, to omit the definition of “radio station”.
CLAUSE 6
- On page 6, in line 53, after “perspectives;” to insert “and”.
CLAUSE 18
- On page 11, in line 35, to omit “isiSwati” and to substitute “siSwati”.
CLAUSE 25
- On page 14, in line 12, to omit “5(2)(e)” and to substitute “5(2)(c), (d)”.
-