National Assembly - 25 February 2003
TUESDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2003 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:02.
The Deputy Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
NEW MEMBER
(Announcement)
The Deputy Speaker announced that the vacancy that had arisen as a result of Dr N O Mndende losing her seat had been filled, in accordance with item 6(3) of Schedule 6 to the Constitution, 1996, by the nomination, with effect from 17 February 2003, of Mr G T Madikiza.
OATH
Mr G T Madikiza, accompanied by Mr D G Mkono and Ms Annelizé van Wyk, made and subscribed the oath and took his seat.
INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
(Announcement)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, the Rules Committee agreed last year to introduce a new procedure in the House, namely that of members’ statements. The committee agreed further that opportunities to make statements would follow the same sequence that previously applied to notices of motion. The practice that had developed for members to make comments and statements by way of notices of motion therefore falls away. Notices of motion will still be called for but should now be strictly limited to motions which members expressly intend should be placed before the House for debate or decision.
The Chief Whip’s Forum agreed on guidelines for members’ statements and notices of motion which would assist in clarifying the different processes. These were published in the ATC of 13 February 2003. I appeal to members to familiarise themselves with the guidelines and abide by them. On the proposal of the Chief Whip’s Forum, members’ statements are being implemented during this first term of 2003 on a trial basis. The process will be continuously monitored by a monitoring committee of the forum.
Members’ statements are to be taken on Tuesdays and Thursdays and also on Fridays when the House sits on a Friday. The Chair will call for notices of motion, motions without notice and then members’ statements - in that order. I hope it is clear and I hope that we will all co-operate with one another so that we do not use the time for notices of motion to actually make political statements. We should differentiate between the two, so that notices of motion are really about giving notice when you do intend that an issue should be on the agenda for discussion and decision by the House. I hope that that will be clear. Please do look at the ATC of 13 February, as I pointed out earlier.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Adv D M BAKKER: Deputy Speaker, I want to give notice of a motion:
That the House discusses the high incidence of police murders and the working conditions of members of the South African Police Service.
Mrs R M SOUTHGATE: Deputy Speaker, the ACDP will move on the next sitting day of the House:
That the House discusses the illegal land grab of Abraham Duvenhage’s farm in Modderkiep in terms of the ruling passed by Judge De Villiers.
PASSING AWAY OF BANOO NUFSERWANJI GINWALA
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) with sadness that Ms Banoo Nufserwanji Ginwala, mother to Dr
Frene Ginwala, the Speaker of the National Assembly, passed away
on Sunday, 23 February 2003, at the age of 94;
(b) that this patriot spent decades of her life without her
daughter, Dr Frene Ginwala, who went into exile to contribute to
the fight against white minority rule; and
(c) that the life of Ms Banoo Ginwala represents a shining
embodiment of the courage and vision of the majority of women of
our country, who under extremely inhuman political and economic
conditions, were able to generate enough strength and moral
stamina to groom and guide the future leaders of this country;
and
(2) expresses its heartfelt condolences to the Ginwala family and friends.
Agreed to.
ICC CRICKET WORLD CUP
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the International Cricket Council's Cricket World Cup started on
Saturday, 8 February 2003, with a joyous ceremonial launch at
the Newlands Cricket Ground in Cape Town; and
(b) a cricket competition of this magnitude takes place for the very
first time on the African continent and South Africa in
particular;
(2) believes that the hosting of a sporting event of this stature serves as an indication of the confidence that the international community has in our country and acts directly to promote friendship, understanding and harmony amongst the people of the world;
(3) joins our United Cricket Board, our country and people, in welcoming to our country and our continent all sporting enthusiasts, players and administrators from all corners of the world; and
(4) conveys its best wishes to all the cricketers, cricket officials and authorities for a successful, entertaining and joyful sports competition.
Agreed to.
RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF HOUSING
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) the resignation of the hon Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele from
Parliament;
(b) the hon Mthembi-Mahanyele served the nation with dedication and
distinction since 1994 as a Member of this House, as Deputy
Minister of Social Development and since June 1995, as Minister
of Housing; and
(c) the hon Mthembi-Mahanyele will continue contributing to the
transformation of our country into a truly democratic, non-
racial, non-sexist and prosperous country in her new capacity;
and
(2) wishes to express its deep-felt gratitude to the hon Mthembi- Mahanyele for her loyal and outstanding service in the executive and in Parliament, and wishes her well in her future endeavours.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Deputy Speaker, if we are being asked whether we object, then we have no objection to that motion but we do have an objection to the speakers’ list. If you want to put the motion we will support it and move on to the next item on the Order Paper. If you want to have a speakers’ list, then we are objecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Whips really were expected to have processed this issue so that it does not come to House and become a disagreement. I really wish the Whips would communicate, consult and make sure that they make it easy for the House to go smoothly through items of this nature. The opposition is objecting to the notion of a speakers’ list. However, they are not opposed to the motion as such. I thought this issue was discussed by the Whips.
Mr F BHENGU: Deputy Speaker, it was indeed discussed and further I may as well mention the hon Ellis. We discussed the matter intensively yesterday and we agreed on the speakers’ list, and I do not understand this. All other parties do know and have the list. They received the speakers’ list yesterday.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Gibson, are you saying that your name is on this speakers’ list without the agreement of the DP? Is that what am I to understand?
Mr D H M GIBSON: Deputy Speaker, the DP, from last Thursday, said that it was inappropriate to have this debate We wrote to the Speaker, we wrote to the Chief Whip of the ANC, and we wrote to the chief whips of all the other parties. The representations which were made were ignored and we now have this embarrassment for the hon Minister because the ANC used its majority or its power in order to force a debate which we say is inappropriate. If they wish to put the motion, we will vote in favour of it. If they wish the debate to proceed, we are going to oppose it.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: We think this issue does not belong to this Chamber. It actually contributes towards wasting the precious time at our disposal. The issue is that agreement has been reached by all parties outside. There are structures that are in place to deal with such matters. We are asking for your ruling on this particular matter and that we may proceed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, because there is a motion without notice on the Table and no agreement on how to prosecute the content of that motion without notice, I am not able to agree that we proceed with the debate as is supposed to be facilitated by the speakers’ list. However, I am going to put the motion without notice as put by the Chief Whip and hear whether there are any objections. Are there any objections to the motion without notice?
HON MEMBERS: No!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are no objections to the motion without notice.
Hon members will be free to speak and say whatever they would have said, had we agreed on this debate, during the time that they have in whatever subsequent debate, to the extent that they are involved in the subsequent debates. The Chair will make sure that in fact we make it possible and give them the latitude to make the necessary comments.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I now wish to remind members that their statements should not exceed one and a half minutes and we will take 14 statements from members, should there be that number of members who wish to make statements on any matter under the sun.
I also want to point out that Ministers, to the extent that issues might be raised that relate to the work under their portfolios, are allowed to take two minutes to respond to any of the issues, should they wish to do so, because, of course, they will not have had any notice. Should they wish to do so, they have two minutes to respond to any statements or issues that have come up in the statements.
CHOLERA OUTBREAK
(Member's Statement)
Ms B P SONJICA:(ANC) Deputy Speaker, recently the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu- Natal were struck by a cholera epidemic. Both these provinces are characterised by abject poverty and a lack of infrastructure. These are provinces that are populated mainly by black people and have been under the homeland system. The cholera outbreak is one of the incidents that demonstrates very acutely the challenges faced by this Government in improving the lives of our people.
As this has been declared the International Year for Fresh Water, we need to direct more funding for the provision of clean water and sanitation and to the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry to ensure the funds are optimally utilised. In the state of the nation address, the President alludes to the reduction of 50% of the backlog of people who do not have fresh water and sanitation and we hope that the allocation to the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry will realise that objective. There is a huge amount of backlog in sanitation and the department needs to increase the pace and meet its annual delivery targets. The department would need to deal closely with the bureaucratic-related delays that hamper delivery on the ground, for example the approving of business plans, transfer of funds, processing of tenders … [Time expired.]
PHASING OUT OF COMMANDO SYSTEM
(Member's Statement)
Mnr A J BOTHA (DP): Adjunkspeaker, die uitfasering van die kommandostelsel soos aangekondig deur Pres Mbeki wek die indruk van vergelding, soos bevestig word deur Minister Lekota se verwysing na die misbruik van wit kommando’s om swartmense te onderdruk. Daar bestaan nie die minste twyfel dat sulke misbruik tydens die apartheidsjare wel plaasgevind het nie, maar net so was die polisie misbruik en daar is geen voorstel dat die polisiediens uitgefaseer word nie. Inteendeel, ons is ten midde van ‘n dramatiese transformasieproses van dié diens. Dit sal sekerlik beter wees om te werk aan die transformasie van die kommando’s waar daar wel tekorte bestaan, sodat diegene ook kan aansluit by die vele wat reeds omvorm het. Instede hiervan, word in die jaar van Letsema, die jaar van die vrywilliger, die oudste bestaande vrywillige organisasie gestig in 1715 uitgefaseer. Om voorspoed in die land te bevorder is dit nodig om die mense veilig te laat voel, ook op die platteland. Huidiglik voel hierdie mense nie veilig nie, en hierdie aangekondigde uitfasering sonder ‘n duidelike plan van aksie om hulle te vervang, suggereer politieke oorwegings, in plaas van praktiese oorwegings. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Mr A J BOTHA (DP): Deputy Speaker, the phasing out of the commando system as announced by President Mbeki creates the impression of retribution, as confirmed by Minister Lekota’s referral to the misuse of white commandos to oppress black people. There is not the slightest doubt that such misuse did occur during the apartheid years, but the police were misused in the same way and there is no suggestion that the police service should be phased out. On the contrary, we are in the middle of a dramatic transformation process of this service. It would surely be better to work on the transformation of the commandos where there are indeed shortages, so that these people can also join the many who have already reformed. Instead thereof, in the year of Letsema, the year of the volunteer, the oldest existing voluntary organisation established in 1715 is being phased out. In order to promote prosperity in our country, it is necessary to make people feel safe, including people in the rural areas. At present these people do not feel safe and this announced phasing-out without a clear plan of action to replace them, suggests political considerations instead of practical considerations. [Applause.]]
ENERGY SOURCES
(Member's Statement)
Mr E J LUCAS (IFP): Deputy Speaker, over the last century or so, much of South Africa’s economic development had been made possible by abundant mineral wealth and accompanying investment and technological advances to exploit these resources in an economically viable manner. When one thinks of South Africa’s minerals, invariably gold, diamonds and platinum make the headlines, but the economic role played by coal has often been downplayed to some extent. Coal mining employs a large number of workers, earns valuable foreign exchange and, most importantly, provides a basic feed store for Eskom power stations to generate an abundance of comparatively cheap electricity. It is exactly this cheap electricity that has allowed rapid expansion in heavy industry, manufacturing and also mining. Coal has its problems. It is dirty, it pollutes and reserves are being depleted fast so that, at some point in the future, we will not be able to rely on coal for electricity generation.
The IFP therefore welcomes the Government’s commitment in the 1998 White Paper on Energy Policy to develop alternative and renewable sources of energy. On Friday 21 February 2003, the first experimental wind energy farm was launched in the Western Cape. We welcome this Eskom-sponsored initiative as wind energy is predicted to lead in the long term to reduced pollution, lower prices for electricity and a better energy mix for South Africa. [Applause.] DISMANTLING OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
(Member's Statement)
Mr L ZITA (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, we wish to reiterate our opposition to all weapons of mass destruction irrespective of which state or country possesses them. We would like to use this occasion also to call upon all states that have developed such weapons to follow South Africa’s example by totally dismantling them.
Today it was announced that the United States of America and Britain are placing a new resolution before the UN Security Council which they hope to employ to trigger a war against Iraq. South Africa, and we assume all parties in this august House, fully supports the existing UN Security Council resolution demanding that Iraq destroy all the weapons of mass destruction it has developed and that the Iraqi government proactively assist the United Nations weapons inspectors in verifying their destruction.
South Africa’s commitment to a peaceful resolution of the current crisis was once again demonstrated by our President’s initiative to send a team of South African experts to Iraq. This team will assist and advise the Iraqis on the speedy destruction of such weapons. While South Africa values its cordial relations with the USA and Britain, we are, however, steadily opposed to the unilateral use of force by these countries acting either separately or in alliance with other states to forcibly disarm Iraq and/or impose a change of government on that country. I thank you. [Applause.]
PHASING OUT OF COMMANDO SYSTEM
(Member's Statement)
Mnr A BLAAS (NNP): Mevrou die Adjunkspeaker, die NNP het met spyt kennis geneem dat die kommandostelsel as ‘n belangrike element van die Weermag klaarblyklik uitgefaseer gaan word. Daar is begrip vir die argument dat die militêre strukture nie polisiëringswerk behoort te doen nie. Voordat hierdie funksie egter oorgedra kan word aan die SA Polisiediens moet laasgenoemde oor die infrastruktuur en die vermoë beskik om magsontplooiing en magsvermenigvuldiging effektief te doen om die nodige beskerming van veral die boere en die plaaswerkers in die landelike gebiede te verseker. Dit beteken nie dat kommando’s as sodanig uitgefaseer moet word nie.
Die kommando’s is nie geoormerk om net ter ondersteuning van die polisie op te tree nie. Hulle is ook militêr opgelei om agterhoedeverdediging te doen indien die Republiek in ‘n staat van oorlog is. In dié proses is ‘n effektiewe kommandostelsel ‘n belangrike afskrikmiddel. Kommando’s vorm ook ‘n territoriale komponent van die reserwemag wat as magsvermenigvuldiger oor ‘n vinnige reaksievermoë beskik. Hulle is ook ‘n baie belangrike bron van inligting.
Die NNP glo dat die hele kommandostelsel deeglik geëvalueer moet word en dat al die implikasies in aanmerking geneem moet word voordat ‘n finale besluit geneem word rakende die toekoms van die kommando’s. Dankie. (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Mr A BLAAS (NNP): Madam Deputy Speaker, the NNP has noted with regret that the commando system, as an important element of the defence force, is evidently going to be phased out. There is understanding for the argument that the military structures are not supposed to be doing police work.
However, before this function can be transferred to the South African Police Service the aforementioned has to have the infrastructure and the ability effectively to undertake the force deployment and force multiplication in order to ensure the necessary protection of especially the farmers and the farmworkers in the rural areas. This does not mean that the commandos as such should be phased out.
The commandos are not earmarked only to act in support of the police. They are also trained in the military to provide rearguard protection if the Republic is in a state of war. In this process an effective commando system is an important deterrent. Commandos also form a territorial component of the reserve force that, as a force multiplier, has a quick reaction capability. They are also a very important source of information.
The NNP believes that the entire commando system should be thoroughly evaluated and all the implications must be taken into consideration before a final decision is made concerning the future of the commandos. Thank you.]
THREAT OF IMPORTS TO POULTRY INDUSTRY
(Member's Statement)
Mr S ABRAM (UDM): Madam Deputy Speaker, the poultry industry in our country provides opportunities and employment to approximately 74 000 people. The total investment in infrastructure in this industry is of the order of R2 billion.
However, the industry is facing a very grim period. The majority of frozen chicken is imported from Brazil, which accounts for 54% of total imports. The declared free on board price is R5,31 a kilogram; the 27% duty is approximately R1,43, and freight, clearance and insurance amount to R1,30, making it a total landed price of R8,04. However, South African broiler producers cannot produce chickens for under R10 a kilogram.
There are retailers who are profiteering while the country bleeds and poverty reigns. Those that claim to be the champions of the consumer do so at the expense and on the account of the supplier. We are calling, therefore, on the hon Minister of Trade and Industry to implement emergency measures on tariff adjustments. To go through the normal route would mean a four to five-month delay. One takes exception that in dollar terms … [Time expired.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Thank you, Madam, I would like to just give a short response to the hon Abram. Isn’t it right … The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Du Toit, we will take responses at the end. [Interjections.] Yes, I saw that the hon Erwin also is quite eager to respond.
SUCCESS OF PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION
(Member's Statement)
Ms S D MOTUBATSE-HOUNKPATIN (ANC): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Since 1994 we have been seized with the transformation of the education system. The programmes which were introduced by the Department of Education, namely COLT and Tirisano, have started bearing fruit.
This success has manifested itself through the matric results. The achievement was reached through joint efforts between parents, educators and school communities. During constituency work, we held education summits with different stakeholders.
I am pleased to inform the House that in Botshabelo a school called Setjhaba-se-Maketse obtained a 100% pass rate. In Mariusdal, a farm school obtained a 100% pass rate. In Soweto, Moletsane Secondary obtained an 85% pass rate with 34 distinctions. All these schools achieved these results with meagre resources.
I wish to congratulate the Minister, the MECs, the educators and the learners on these achievements and on showing commitment to the government programmes, and I would like to appeal to the Minister for more allocation of resources … [Time expired.] [Applause.]
VOTE OF CONFIDENCE IN PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE BY NAM LEADERS
(Member's Statement)
Rev K R J MESHOE (ACDP): Deputy Speaker, many believe that it was a sad day for Africa when the leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement decided in Malaysia to give the Zimbabwean president a unanimous vote of confidence in spite of the human rights abuses his government is perpetrating in that country. [Interjections.] The fact that a draft resolution to that effect was accepted without debate has cast a dark cloud over hopes that Africa will eventually rid itself of rogues, corrupt leaders, dictators and thieves in government.
This House must remember that at the height of the rule of the late Mobutu Sese Seko, former president of the then Zaïre, his personal wealth was estimated at US$6 billion, while his country’s debt amounted to US$9 billion. He stole his country’s wealth and there was no condemnation from African leaders. Africans must not allow the existence of a brotherhood that protects, defends and closes ranks around corrupt leaders who should be exposed and penalised for their greed and cruelty. [Interjections.]
On the contrary, those honest leaders of integrity are expected to confront evil wherever it raises its ugly head, even if it is within its own ranks. Africa desperately needs leaders who will defend the rights of the poor and vulnerable, and not their colleagues who are motivated by greed and self- aggrandizement. The ACDP believes that it is wrong to equate a protest against human rights abuse and the death of democracy in Zimbabwe with support for the British and American governments. Democracy and human rights are universal norms. [Applause.]
ABOLITION OF COMMANDO SYSTEM
(Member's Statement)
Dr P W A MULDER (VF): Mevrou die Adjunkspeaker, in Suid-Afrika word ongeveer 55 uit elke 100 000 mense vermoor. Dis ‘n hoë syfer. In Amerika is dit ses uit 100 000. As die moorde op Suid-Afrikaanse plase - dis nou van swart en wit mense - in isolasie beskou word, is die syfer ongeveer 280 uit 100 000. Ons het duidelik ‘n probleem met beveiliging op die platteland.
Die VF het verlede jaar hierdie saak met die Regering bespreek. AgriSA en die Transvaalse Landbou-unie het dit met die Regering bespreek. Kommando’s speel ‘n belangrike rol in die beveiliging van die platteland. Skielik verlede week kondig president Mbeki in die Raad aan dat die kommandostelsel afgeskaf gaan word. Daar was geen vooraf konsultasie met enige van die landbou-organisasies nie. Die VF se versoeke is duidelik geïgnoreer.
Die besluit stuur net een boodskap aan die boere en die gemeenskap op die platteland: julle veiligheid is nie vir ons belangrik nie. Wat is die Regering se redes?
``Kommando’s is wit strukture wat teen swart mense optree,’’ sê die Minister. Wat is die feite? Agt en veertig persent van die reserwemag en 40% van die kommando’s is nie wit nie. Dit is meer as 20 000 van die sowat 52 000 kommandolede. ‘n Ander rede wat aangevoer word, is dat kommando’s krimineel optree teenoor die bevolking. Sedert 1996 was daar ongeveer 260 000 optredes deur kommando’s sonder probleme. Sedert 1996 was daar net drie gevalle waar kommandolede aan wanoptrede skuldig bevind is.
Dit lyk my dat die Regering ná die bomme oorreageer het en op ondeurdagte wyse ‘n oorhaastige en verkeerde besluit geneem het sonder om die betrokkenes te konsulteer. Dit stuur ‘n verkeerde boodskap uit. Ons moet die stelsel behou of die tyd gebruik wat die Minister gesê het ons gaan hê om ‘n beter stelsel te kry, en nie dinge oorhaastig aankondig en ‘n verkeerde boodskap uitstuur nie. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Dr P W A MULDER (FF): Madam Deputy Speaker, in South Africa approximately 55 people of every 100 000 are being murdered. This is a high figure. In America it is 6 out of every 100 000. Considering the murders on South African farms in isolation - that is of black and white people - the figure is approximately 280 out of 100 000. We clearly have a problem with security in the rural areas.
Last year the FF discussed this issue with the Government. AgriSA and the Transvaal Agricultural Union discussed it with the Government. Commandos play an important role in the security of the rural areas. Last week President Mbeki all of a sudden announced in the House that the commando system was going to be abolished. There was no prior consultation with any of the agricultural organisations. The requests from the FF have clearly been ignored.
This decision only sends out one message to the farmers and rural community: Your safety is not important to us. What are the Government’s reasons?
``Commandos are white structures that act against black people’’, the Minister is saying. What are the facts? Forty-eight percent of the reserve force, and 40% of the commandos are not white. This is more than 20 000 of the 52 000 or so commando members. Another reason that has been given is that commandos carry out acts of crime against the population. Since 1996 there have been about 260 000 actions carried out by commandos without any problems. Since 1996 there have only been three cases in which members of commandos have been found guilty of misconduct.
It appears to me as if the Government has overreacted after the bombs, and it has taken a rash and wrong decision in an ill-considered manner without consulting those involved. This sends out a wrong message. We must keep the system or use the time that the Minister said we are going to have to develop an improved system, and not hastily announce things and send out a wrong message. [Time expired.]]
TRANSFORMATION AT LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL
(Member's Statement)
Ms M C LOBE (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, to achieve the notion that the people shall govern as set out in the Freedom Charter, the ANC has developed a people-centred and people-driven planning process at the local government level. From 5 December 2000, municipalities have been involved in a protracted, difficult and challenging transformation process that, amongst others, included the development of an integrated development plan. Notwithstanding the lack of capacity and resources, our municipalities managed to produce good IDPs through their commitment to producing sustainable service delivery. A few rural municipalities can be mentioned, for example the Tzaneen local municipality, the Umhlatuzi local municipality, etc. IDPs are important tools for accelerating delivery and ensuring that our people take their destinies firmly into their own hands. It is therefore important to align and co-ordinate development plans, especially between provincial and local government, for efficient service delivery.
We want to call on all communities to exercise their right and actively participate in the process of developing and monitoring IDPs as a tool to push back the frontiers of poverty. We also hope that the national and provincial spheres of government will allocate adequate resources to strengthen their support towards the local government sphere. I thank you. [Applause.]
INVOLVEMENT OF NEW NP IN CONTROVERSIAL WESTERN CAPE DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES
(Member's Statement)
Mr C M LOWE (DP): Deputy Speaker, following the arrests on corruption charges of New NP politicians Peter Marais and David Malatsi in the R300 000 Roodefontein bribery scandal, New NP Western Cape MECs Johan Gelderblom and André Gaum are reported to have joined Malatsi in soliciting a donation from another developer awaiting provincial permission for another controversial development at Suiderstrand in the Agulhas National Park. [Interjections.]
Marais stated that Marthinus van Schalkwyk knew about the R300 000 solicited before the golf estate development was irregularly approved by the then Minister Malatsi last year. [Interjections.]
There is increasing evidence that the New NP, on direct instructions from Van Schalkwyk to his provincial cabinet to raise money for the party, targeted every developer with matters pending before the Western Cape government. By his own admission Malatsi estimated the number of developers at more than 100.
Van Schalkwyk must have known, or should have known, about these activities at the heart of his government, and his attempt to deflect the scandal is rapidly unravelling. These four MECs, acting at the behest of Van Schalkwyk, symbolise the New NP’s betrayal of the Western Cape voters, and the corruption of democracy in the province.
In his pursuit of power, Mr Van Schalkwyk is clearly the man behind it. In dumping the principles of the DA for the patronage of the ANC, he has forgotten the people of the Western Cape. [Interjections.]
HIV STATUS OF PLAYWRIGHT
(Member's Statement)
Dr U ROOPNARAIN (IFP): Madam Deputy Speaker, Gibson Kente, the famous South African playwright, whose first production, Manana, The Jazz Prophet, was arguably the first black play to have become a hit, has disclosed that he’s HIV-positive. We should all applaud him for his honesty and courage in disclosing his status and not denying it or trying to conceal it.
Hopefully this will be a turning point in the fight against HIV/Aids in South Africa as a result of which people, especially those in the public eye, will come out and reveal their status. It is hoped that this will help break the silence and the stigma concerning HIV/Aids.
We hope that Gibson receives all the support he needs and that his actions will encourage other people to follow his lead. We as political power brokers need to ensure that people who are HIV-positive come forward and declare their status by supporting them.
INEQUITIES IN PROVINCIAL HEALTH CARE
(Member's Statement)
Mr L V J NGCULU (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, while a solid foundation has been laid to promote equity and equality, the ultimate challenge for Government remains that of implementation. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in the area of health, which is the bedrock of a productive society. In terms of health care provision, we continue to observe glaring interprovincial and intraprovincial inequities.
There is an urgent need, therefore, to intensify the transformation agenda and identify areas in which there is greater poverty, ensuring that services and resources reach the people who need them most. Facing the challenge of HIV/Aids and other communicable diseases requires that we intensify our integrated and multisectoral interventions characterised by partnerships between Government and the communities.
We acknowledge the role played by our health providers who are working tirelessly to expand our 250 Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission programmes even further. We must, however, be concerned about the slowness in the expansion of the PMTCT programmes in three provinces. We hope that the Minister will inform this House on plans to address the slowness in provinces. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
TAXATION OF RETIREMENT SAVINGS
(Member's Statement)
Dr P J RABIE (New NP): Speaker, the New NP appeals to the hon Minister of Finance to make reference to the investigation and relaxation of taxation of retirement savings in his forthcoming Budget Speech. The New NP requests the Minister to give an indication of how to encourage long-term savings that would create post-retirement income security.
The material plight of some of the aged is reason for serious concern. The present high levels of inflation and the large disparities in the distribution of income have eroded household income. An announcement regarding a substantial reduction in taxation on retirement savings due to be implemented in 2004 will strengthen business and investor confidence, and lessen the dependence of the aged on financial assistance provided by Government. I thank you.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: I will try …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I just say this to Ministers: If three different issues were raised by members, we will give you two minutes for each of these issues. If there is one issue, you have only two minutes.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: What happens if you raise three parts of the chicken? Can you get two minutes for each? [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No! I will give you two minutes for the chicken.
THREAT OF IMPORTS TO POULTRY INDUSTRY
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: It is relevant in my answer, because in an attempt previously to find some degree of protection for the poultry industry, we initiated a fairly unique antidumping action which dealt with the different parts of a chicken. I could spend a lot more than two minutes telling you about that action and the different parts of the chicken, but I think the position is absolutely crystal clear. The industry is aware of these vagaries in the international market. It must apply through the normal processes which it has already initiated - an antidumping action.
There is no other recourse that we can put in of sudden emergency measures. This is not a countervailing action and the industry is very familiar with this. They have been very much part and parcel of the action against certain producers in the United States where we took on an antidumping action. I think this is a challenge to the industry which we have spoken to them about many times, in that this is one of those industries in the world where prices vary considerably, and we have to take those actions that are open to us if it is justified. But there are aspects that I would put to the industry, which means that they should be a little bit more efficient in some aspects of their production.
Now, we have worked with the industry on many occasions to protect them and I do not think that there is cause for them to say they have not received the correct attention timeously. They have.
An HON MEMBER: That is a headless chicken.
CHOLERA OUTBREAK
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY: Speaker, I would like to thank the hon Sonjica for her support and also for the way she is focused on the crisis.
The current outbreak of cholera in the Eastern Cape, following the one in KwaZulu-Natal, is the seventh or eighth such outbreak since the 1970s. It is indeed ironic that, at a time when we are succeeding in providing the vast majority of our people who never had clean water before with the service, we are faced with this kind of problem, one which virtually every African country on the east coast has been facing for many decades, and other countries throughout the world.
One would have expected a far greater casualty list but for the immense work of government departments and the Health Department. The fact is that in terms of progress, we will now be providing 37 million South Africans, out of a population of 42 million, with safe, clean water, and in five years’ time we will reach all our people.
We are providing approximately R1 billion a year and reaching a million people as we spend that money. So, the year 2008 sees our entire population covered. But, as the hon Sonjica has pointed out, there is a tremendous backlog with regard to sanitation and if we are going to defeat this cholera problem, and all waterborne diseases, it is not only clean, safe water that is required, but it is adequate sanitation, and it is hygiene awareness. She has called on us to involve the local communities and their local governments, which we are doing through our Wash campaign, which is water, sanitation and hygiene awareness.
At the current rate of expenditure, we are expecting to provide all our people with adequate sanitation by the year 2010, but we really are going to have to rely for all our service programmes on local government which increasingly, in terms of our Constitution, is given roles and responsibilities as well as capital expenditure to ensure that our people everywhere receive the kind of services required. [Time expired.]
PHASING OUT OF COMMANDOS
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, I would like to appeal to members of the House to recall, when dealing with this question of commandos, the historic mission which we chose, as a nation, in order to transform our society from the old order to a new one. One of the reasons we chose to go to negotiations was so that we could systematically transform our society, instead of landing ourselves in confusion. Now, the Constitution prescribes that particular institutions will play a particular role. So, in this case, the police and SA Police Service have the task of policing society all round.
We could not have acted at once. It was important that we study the situation and as we move on, proceed to implement, step by step, the transformation process.
The moment for the commandos to cease to play the role they played in the
old order and change into this order, has come, because we must not forget
that the commandos came into being in order to beef up the old regime’s
struggle against the liberation movements. That really was the reason.
[Interjections.] That was the reason! I know that on the different sides of
the colour line we see things differently, but people must listen to my
perspective. That was how it was. That is why they were not black and
white. Only whites were given the weapons, only whites played this role,
and only whites had the right to stop Africans on the road and ask them:
Waarvandan kom jy? Waar gaan jy?'' ens. [Where do you come from? Where
are you going?’’ etc.]
That was the reason. Today we need a situation in which those who enforce the law must be properly trained. They must have the powers according to the Constitution to arrest and they must be accountable. Therefore, we have said here that we want to phase them out so that we are able to strengthen the SA Police Service. We are mustering some of the people out of the SA National Defence Force and others into the policing services, reclaiming them so that we strengthen the Police Service. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Minister, your time has expired.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: We are proceeding with this issue. There can be no stopping, I am sorry. We must go on now. [Applause.]
PHASING OUT OF COMMANDOS
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Of course, it is clear to us what we mean by phasing out. We mean exactly that. We are not stopping the commandos from operating tomorrow and the day after. We have given ourselves a period of six years within which to phase out the commandos.
In discussing the matter, Cabinet said: Even at that point, we must be able to look back and check if indeed we have everything in place in terms of resources of both the human and material kind which will then take over this function.
We are going to replace the commandos with the police. It is clear. Our Constitution enjoins us to use the police for policing and arresting. It is quite clear, and this is not the only area in which we are phasing out some of the structures. We have already phased out a number of structures in the Police Service itself.
I am sure you will remember that we used to have, in the olden days, what were referred to as the murder and robbery squads. Those have been phased out and we have something else in their place. It is a continuous process.
Now, if you are painting the commandos in the way that you are, just go to Northern KwaZulu-Natal, to Mpumalanga and to Limpopo and ask those people there about their experiences vis-à-vis the commandos. Do not come and speak here as if commandos have been angels through the work that they have been doing. Do not come here and do that.
We are going to phase out this structure and there will be police officials who will take responsibility for all crimes that happen in our country, including in the rural areas as well as the farming communities.
We have been discussing rural safety with the farming communities. The fact that we should have gone on a broad consultation process in order for us to implement a decision of this kind would be a case of taking democracy to extremes. We are communicating with people and they understand the reasons why we are moving in this direction. One of them is that we are following the Constitution. The Police Service is the only structure in the country that has responsibility for crime-combating and arresting.
The Army itself is phasing out … [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon Asmal is the last Minister in this round. Hon Aucamp, why are you rising?
Mnr C AUCAMP: A point of order! According to the rules of this new statement time, when a Minister has two minutes to reply, is it in order that different Ministers each use two minutes to reply to the same question?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is up to the Ministers what they want to respond to, hon member. I now call upon the hon Asmal to take his two-minute slot.
SUCCESS OF PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION
(Minister's Response)
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, I thank Comrade Dorothy Motubatse for the intervention.
At lunchtime, I met the South Africa-European Union delegation. The first point that was raised was that the reason why there is no direct investment in South Africa is the lack of trained, educated blacks. I had to spend the rest of the morning telling them how skills were acquired so quickly at Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen that we are selling highly specialised motorcars built by people who were previously virtually illiterate.
Capacity-building and skills acquisition can be so quickly done if there is a political desire, movement and intention. So, I am very pleased that in reference to the poorest schools in the Free State and Soweto, we can talk about enormous pass rates and enormous exemption rates. These are not the schools that catch the headlines. These are not the schools at the foothills of Table Mountain, the private schools that advertise themselves and that charge R25 000 - R30 000 fees a year. I am pleased, therefore, to announce to this House and to Comrade Dorothy that on Tuesday next week I will be announcing the results of a major study on the costings and financing of education in Pretoria.
We already account for 24% of the budget, nearly 5,7% of the gross national product. I do not think that it is necessary for us to ask for more money, but it is how the money is spent that is important. On Tuesday next week, we will work out how that money is spent, and how there would have to be intervention to ensure that the poorest of the poor schools in rural areas and townships get better intervention in terms of resources so that they can carry out the kinds of things they are doing.
I should add, in conclusion, that the results here are a triumph of the human spirit. They show the resilience and the capacity of people to overcome very bad working conditions, with additional teachers being absent, and they are still able to motivate children to get results of this type. I think we should be proud of these developments that are taking place in the schools, because we do not tend to remark on how excellent the progress has been over the last few years. [Applause.]
FINANCIAL COMMITTEE REPORT
(Draft Resolution)
USOSWEBHU OMKHULU WEQEMBU LENINGI: Phini likaSomlomo, ngazisa njengalokho kubhalwe ngaphansi kwegama lami oHlwini lweziHloko ukuthi:
Kuyothi emuva kokwethulwa koMthethosivivinywa weSabiwomali kule Ndlu iKomidi LezeziMali, ngaphandle kokubalula koMthetho 290(3), libuyele kule Ndlu kungakapheli izinsuku eziyi-14 ukuze lizobika. (Translation of Zulu draft resolution follows.)
[The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That, upon the introduction of the main appropriation bill, the Portfolio Committee on Finance, notwithstanding Rule 290 (3), report to the House within fourteen consecutive days.]
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA THIRD AMENDMENT BILL
Report adopted without debate. CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THIRD AMENDMENT BILL AND CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA FOURTH AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, colleagues and hon members, I have been given to understand that, in this debate, we are dealing with both Bills that are before this House by means of which we seek to amend the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
Allow me, first and foremost, to deal with the Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill. It’s in fact unusual and yet, for
reasons that will soon become apparent, quite apposite today to start the
debate on a Bill before this august House by quoting from the Book of
books. For this purpose, I have selected the gospel according to Luke,
Chapter 7, verses 31 to 34, where it is written that our Lord Jesus Christ
once said the following:
Now to what can I compare the people of this day? What are they like?
They are like children sitting in the marketplace. One group shouts to
the other, We played wedding music for you but you wouldn't dance. We
sang funeral songs, but you wouldn't cry''. John the Baptist came, and he
fasted and drank no wine and you said,He has a demon on him’’. The Son
of Man came and he ate and drank, and you said, ``Look at this man, He is
a glutton and drinker, a friend of tax collectors and other outcasts’’.
The Bill before the House this afternoon seeks to address an anomaly of our membership of legislatures system. As a consequence of the decision of the Constitutional Court in United Democratic Movement v President of the RSA and Others, floor-crossing, while legally not possible in the national and provincial legislatures, is allowed and has happened already in the local government sphere. None of us would be right in advocating that, largely due to our experience in the local government sphere, things should be left as they are. To be where we are today, we have indeed taken a long, circuitous and tortuous route. We have come all the way from the time when, for example, the IFP through its legal counsel, Peter Hodes SC, David Unterhälter and R F van Rooyen, argued before the Constitutional Court during the certification proceedings that the retention of the bar against floor- crossing, that is the antidefection clause, was in violation of some of the constitutional principles that were contained in the interim constitution which the new Constitution was required to be predicated upon. As can be gleaned from its judgment, in In Re: Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, the Constitutional Court, arguably for the right reasons, rejected such contentions.
Lest we all forget, while there has always been and there will no doubt always be a diversity of views within Parliament and in society at large as to whether or not floor-crossing is appropriate for our country, a number of representatives of political parties including the DP, New NP, PAC and ACDP have in the past argued for an absolute freedom to cross the floor. The IFP, presumably after reflecting carefully on the question, changed its position and temporarily sided with the ANC in its opposition to the removal of the antidefection provision.
It may also be useful to remind this House of the DP’s motivation and submission to the ad hoc committee on membership of legislatures which was delivered on 16 October 1997 by the hon Mr Colin Eglin, who declared passionately that item 23A of Annexure A to Schedule 6 to the Constitution, the antidefection provision, should be deleted in its entirety as it, among others, placed extraordinary coercive powers in the hands of party leaders and/or those who control the party machines and reduced the status of all members of the National Assembly from that of representatives of the people to that of agents of a political party. To their eternal credit, albeit uncharacteristically, the leaders and representatives of the DP in this House stuck consistently to this perspective and voted together with the rest of us, the ANC - their archenemy and nemesis - thus ensuring that we had 280 out of 324, that is 86%, of the members of this House who were present and voted in favour of the removal of the antidefection provision.
In its editorial, The Argus had earlier on declared on 9 February 1995 that, as the first post-apartheid constitution of the republic was still being made, the provision that members of Parliament who quit their party should automatically resign their seats made individual parliamentarians too beholden to party discipline; that it turned them into caucus-voting fodder and effete pawns in the political chess game which, apart from making for boring politics, was simply not in the public interest; and that historically and in South African politics, crossing the floor or taking to the cross benches had been an accepted component of dynamic democracy.
As what I have already said clearly and amply demonstrates, virtually all opposition parties at one time or another wanted the removal of the antidefection provision in order to ensure that, in the words of the hon Mr Eglin, ``South African politics will be healthier and that Parliament will be able to develop to its full potential as the custodian of representative democracy in our country.’’ The ANC, virtually the only party that consistently advocated caution as far as this issue was concerned, was placed under so much political pressure that a compromise was eventually reached. The Constitutional Assembly, in its wisdom, left it to Parliament to pass an Act within reasonable time after the new Constitution took effect in order to permit the retention of membership of a legislature despite the loss of party membership. Needless to say, a few years later, the ANC - the last reliable bastion against the removal of the antidefection provision - after a lot of persuasion and pressure, changed its view. As a result, Bills seeking to address this issue were debated in and passed by this House and the NCOP with more than the requisite majorities.
Some of us really thought that opposition parties would sing, dance and gyrate as the ANC eventually played the wedding music that they hitherto had insisted upon. Much to our chagrin, a small minority of members of this House took us to court and sought to stop the implementation of what most of them had clamoured for for so long. From then on, strange things started to happen. The whole polity was thrown into a state of utter confusion. Dollops of untruths and insults such as that the ANC sought thereby to use inducements to steal seats from minority parties and take political control of every square inch of our country were peddled around by some in the media as well as by those who, only yesteryear, had clamoured for the removal of the bar against floor-crossing.
Judges of the High Court in the Western Cape, who obviously knew or ought to have known that under section 167(4)(c) read with section 80 of the Constitution, only the Constitutional Court may decide on an application such as the one that had been brought by that small minority of members of this House, nonetheless granted them an order freezing the operation of duly enacted, assented to, signed and promulgated Acts of Parliament. The Constitutional Court too, for some unfathomable reasons, entertained their application without ascertaining whether, as required under section 80(2)(a) of the Constitution, their application was supported by at least one third of the members of the National Assembly, that is, whether they had locus standi.
A simple calculation suggests that 70% of the 400 members of this House voted in favour of the Bills and therefore the small minority, led by the hon Bantubonke Holomisa, would not have been able to find one third of us to support him in his bid to frustrate the will of the majority. Be that as it may, the Constitutional Court ruled that but for the fact that the relevant transitional provisions of the Constitution were not amended within a reasonable time after the Constitution came into effect, floor- crossing would have started happening legally in all spheres of government, not only in the local sphere.
This Bill is a reflection of our earnest collective effort to address the existing anomaly and appropriately do away with the antidefection provision so that, to paraphrase the hon Mr Eglin, members of all legislatures are liberated from the clutches of party bosses and those who control party machines. I unreservedly commend it to this House. For those who have always badgered the ANC to collaborate with them in order to have the bar removed, this, surely, is a wedding song. To them I say: Rise and dance. To the rest it may be a funeral song, a dirge. To them I say: The Members’ bar is open for the after-tears party.
I wish to ask this House to turn its attention to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill. It may be stated that although this Bill might not be as controversial as the floor-crossing amendment, it addresses some very important issues. The main objectives of the Bill are the following: it provides for Bills regulating certain financial matters to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure set out in section 76(1) of the Constitution; it changes the name of the Northern Province to Limpopo; it regulates provincial intervention in local government; and it simplifies the process of review by the National Council of Provinces in the case of national executive intervention in provincial government.
The amendments to section 139 of the Constitution, which regulates interventions by provincial executives and local government, form the crux of the Bill. Those amendments provide a comprehensive scheme for interventions by provincial executives in municipalities. This scheme recognises and preserves the role of a democratically elected municipal council, and at the same time assures all residents and stakeholders that serious or prolonged failures of governance will be dealt with in order to ensure that each municipality has the ability to meet its obligation to provide basic services or to meet its financial commitments.
The amendments to section 139 will also help to assure that local government meets its constitutional objectives that include, among others, providing services to communities, promoting social and economic development, and promoting a safe and healthy environment. It will also give investors the confidence to lend to municipalities, and will improve governance in the local sphere, helping South Africans to gain more access to affordable and quality services.
Furthermore, the amendments to section 139 assure our people that local government will be effective and that financial or governance failures will be corrected and help make private investment capital available to well-run municipalities at the lowest possible cost. It thus gives me great pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to commend this Bill to this House.
With the minute or two left, I wish to say the following to our colleague that is departing from the executive and from this House: We started working for the Government and the people of the Republic of South Africa together as Deputy Ministers. And those of us who have known you, Minister, for long enough, have enjoyed working with you. It saddens us that for reasons, which we will never understand, we were never, as this House, given an opportunity to bid you farewell, but I do think it behoves all of us to say thank you very much. You, and through you, we, reached those of our people that live in hovels, who had no hope, before you became Minister, of having a roof above their heads. And together with you, we were able to deliver electricity, water, things which some of the people to my left had been taking for granted for decades, having become accustomed to the fact that as long as there was white minority rule in this country, they were a preserve of whites. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: What about Joe Slovo?
Indeed, Joe Slovo had a few months before he died. Please remember that. Yes, please remember that.
So, she took over and she delivered. Some of our kith and kin - because some of us still have people living in hovels - are proud of the contribution that you made, and we as members of the executive here present, and led by the hon the Deputy President, say ``Farewell, sister, perform even better where you are now being deployed’’. Thank you very much. Mnr J T DELPORT: Geagte Adjunkspeaker, die reg van openbare verteenwoordigers om van party te verander bring ‘n totaal nuwe dimensie tot die politieke speelveld in Suid-Afrika. Waaroor dit gaan, is oor die verhoogde toetse aan moraliteit en integriteit wat gestel gaan word.
Politici kon nog altyd hul kiesers teleurstel. Daar was nog altyd voorbeelde gewees van korrupsie en selfverryking. Daar was altyd gevalle waar integriteit ontbreek het. Daar was ook nog altyd gevalle waar partye wat in die regeringsbanke beland, nalaat om hul beloftes na te kom. Ek noem nie name nie, volg net my oë. Maar die verkose politikus is nie net verteenwoordiger van sy mense nie, hy is ook verkose leier. Hy moet ook binne die breë mandaat wat hy kry, rigting gee aan sy kiesers.
Hierdie nuwe wetgewing bring twee gevalle na vore waar ek praat van verhoogde integriteitseise. Eerste is gewoon: wat maak hy met sy reg om van party te verander. Watter redes hou hy voor om dit te doen. Aan die einde van verlede jaar het die kieserspubliek baie erg dié situasie ervaar met gevolglike frustrasie, woede, selfs veragting by die kiesers. Tereg, want soveel stadsraadslede wat onder ‘n bepaalde beleid en vlag, ‘n bepaalde posisionering in die politiek, verkies is, het daardie party verlaat wat hulle daar gebring het om op ‘n ander vlak te gaan staan. En tog besluit diegene, nadat die kiesers so verkies het, om sogenaamd te herposisioneer, om ondersteuners van die ANC te word onder die naam en vlag van die Nuwe NP en om stadsrade in ANC beheer oor te gee - goeie stadsrade. Hulle noem dit herposisionering, en ander mense noem dit sommer verraad.
Maar, daar is ook ‘n teenkant: wat maak die openbare verteenwoordiger as sy partyleiding … [Tussenwerpsels.] Agb lid, ek het bedank en tóé na ‘n ander party gegaan. Wat maak die openbare verteenwoordiger as sy partyleiding ‘n koers inslaan waarvoor daar geen mandaat van sy kiesers is nie, én waarmee hy nie kan saamstem nie? Ook dan word sy integriteit getoets.
Dít is die situasie wat nou ook in hierdie Huis deur hierdie Grondwetwysiging veroorsaak gaan word. Daardie agb lede in die Nuwe NP sal nie kan ontsnap aan ‘n enkele vraag wat hul elkeen self moet beantwoord nie. Die enkele vraag is: het ons partyleiding werklik herposisioneer of het ons partyleiding uitverkoop? En, as daardie agb lede sukkel met die vraag, vra ‘n paar van die ou staatmakers wat hulle doen, en wat hulle dink. Vra hulle wat eersdaags weer ‘n kruisie moet gaan maak. Vra vir u partystrukture, as u het, en as u nie het nie, dan is die vraag mos klaar beantwoord. Of kyk wat in tussenverkiesings gebeur - as u nie ‘n kandidaat het nie, dan is die vraag mos klaar beantwoord.
Daar rus ‘n dure plig op politici om eerbaar teenoor hul kiesers op te tree. In die algemeen, by almal van ons, want soveel politici tree nie in algemene belang op nie. Soveel werk vir selfbelang, vir die behoud of verkryging van ‘n pos, vir ‘n pot lensiesop. Nou ja, sommiges se sop is dikker as ander, en smaakliker as ander, maar oppas die bitter nasmaak sal nie uitbly nie. Die DA steun hierdie wetgewing wetende dat dit ‘n nuwe bedeling met nuwe integriteitseise inlui. Die DA was van oordeel dat die tydperke vir oorloop aanvanklik verminder moet word, en wou nou graag die oorlooptydperk verkort sien. Die DA glo ook, en dit is deel van wat ons glo, dat dit ‘n moraliteitseis moet word in die politiek - ‘n eerbaarheidstoets. Die DA glo dat as oorloop in ‘n bepaalde raad of liggaam die drastiese gevolg het dat daar ‘n verandering in die politieke beheer kom, moet daardie nuwe meerderheid dan die eerbare weg volg om ‘n verkiesing uit te skryf. Laat die kiesers dan oordeel wat hulle wil hê.
Daar word gesê ‘n week is ‘n lang tyd in die politiek. Dit is so. Maar terselfdertyd is vyf jaar in die politiek kort, want oor net meer as ‘n jaar gaan die kiesers alweer kans kry om oor die gebeure van hierdie termyn hul oordeel uit te spreek. Gaan hulle weer die geleentheid kry om te oorweeg waar hulle die kruisie gaan maak. Daarin lê die antwoord vir die kieserspubliek wat miskien nou gefrustreerd is. Die balansskaal, op die ou end, is in die hande van die kiesers. Dit is nie, agb lede, in hierdie Huis se hande nie. Ons toekoms, as politici, is in die hande van die kiesers wat moet oordeel. Die kieserspubliek het die mag van die kruisie, en daardie mag kan goedkeur of afkeur.
Die DA sien daarna uit dat Suid-Afrika moet stembus toe gaan. Ons nooi u, kom loop saam. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr J T DELPORT: Hon Deputy Speaker, the right of public representatives to change parties brings a totally new dimension to the political playing field in South Africa. At issue here are the elevated tests of morality and integrity which are going to be set.
Politicians have always been capable of disappointing their voters. There have always been examples of corruption and self-enrichment. There have always been instances when integrity has been lacking. There have also always been instances when parties who have ended up in government neglected to fulfil their promises. I am not naming names, just follow my eyes. But the elected politician is not just a representative of his people, he is also an elected leader. He must also offer direction to his voters within the broad mandate he receives.
This new legislation brings to the fore two instances in which I am talking about increased integrity requirements. The first is simply: What does he do with his right to change parties? What reasons does he present to do so?
At the end of last year the voting public experienced this situation very badly with concomitant frustration, rage, even contempt on the part of the voters.
Rightly so, because so many city councillors who were elected under a particular policy and flag and a particular position in politics, left the party which got them there to stand at another level. And yet these people decided, after the voters had elected, to supposedly reposition themselves, to become supporters of the ANC under the name and flag of the New NP and to hand city councils over to ANC control - good city councils. They call it repositioning and other people simply call it betrayal.
But, there is also another side: What does the public representative do if his party leadership … [Interjections.] Hon member, I resigned and then went to another party. What does the public representative do if his party leadership takes a direction for which there is no mandate from his voters, and with which he cannot agree? Then his integrity is also tested.
This is the situation which will also be caused in this House by this amendment of the Constitution. Those hon members in the New NP will not be able to escape a single question which each of them will have to answer. The single question is: Has our party leadership really repositioned or has our party leadership sold out? And, if those hon members struggle with the question, ask a few of the old stalwarts what they are doing, and what they think. Ask those who will have to vote again one of these days. Ask your party structures, if you have them, and if do not have them then the question has surely already been answered. Or look at what happens in by- elections - if you do not have a candidate the question has surely already been answered.
A heavy duty rests on politicians to behave honourably towards their voters. Generally this applies to all of us, because so many politicians do not act in the public interest. So many work for self-interest, for the retention or attainment of a post, for a mess of pottage. Well, some people’s pottage is thicker than others’, and tastier than others’, but beware - the bitter aftertaste will not be avoided.
The DA supports this legislation knowing that it heralds a new dispensation with new integrity requirements. The DA was of the opinion that the period for crossing the floor initially should be reduced, and would now have liked to see the crossing-over period reduced. The DA also believes, and this is part of what we believe, that it should become a morality requirement in politics - a test of honesty. The DA believes that if crossing the floor in a specific council or body will have the drastic consequence that a change in political control comes about, that new majority should then follow the honourable path of declaring an election. Let the voters then decide what they want.
It is said that a week is a long time in politics. This is true. But at the same time, five years in politics is short, because in just more than a year the voters will once again have an opportunity to express their opinion about the events of this term. They will once again have the opportunity to consider where they will make their mark. Therein lies the answer for the voting public which is perhaps frustrated now. The scale, in the end, is in the hands of the voters. It is not, hon members, in this House’s hands. Our future, as politicians, is in the hands of the voters who must judge. The voting public has the power of the ballot, and that power can endorse or censure.
The DA looks forward to South Africa going to the polls. We invite you to come with us.] Adv J H DE LANGE: Hon Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, I rise on behalf of the ANC in unconditional support of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill, referred to as the Third Amendment Bill, and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill, referred to as the Fourth Amendment Bill, being placed before this House today for debate and decision.
I, firstly, want to make a few general remarks about the Fourth Amendment Bill dealing with floor crossing. As hon members are aware, the justice committee, during June 2002, recommended to this House the adoption of four pieces of legislation which had the effect of introducing the principle of crossing the floor into our law at national, provincial and local spheres of government. After a court challenge by the UDM and others, all these Bills were held to be constitutional in terms of their substantive provisions, but the membership Bill was held not to be constitutional because of a procedural defect during the passing of this Bill. The Fourth Amendment Bill before us today is the Government’s and the committee’s response to deal with this procedural defect. To contextualise for the first time in this House the Constitutional Court’s approach to these pieces of legislation, I will spend some time in this debate on a brief analysis of the judgments given.
During early October 2002, the Constitutional Court handed down three related judgments dealing with floor crossing. The main judgment considered the constitutional validity of four Acts of Parliament passed in June 2002 providing for members to be able to cross the floor at the three levels of government and to retain their seats despite defecting from the parties under whose banner they were elected. The second judgment dealt with an appeal by Government against interim orders issued by the Cape High Court suspending the operation of the legislation dealing with constitutional amendments contrary to section 80 of the Constitution. The third judgment gave reasons for an interim order made by the Constitutional Court when it convened on 3 and 4 July 2002 and heard argument on behalf of the UDM, Government and others, which also had the effect of suspending the operation of these constitutional amendments, possibly contrary to the said section 80.
When the Constitutional Court considered the constitutional validity of these four pieces of legislation, it did so by looking at this legislation in two packages. The first, concerned with local government, consists of Act 18 of 2002, which amends the Constitution to permit limited floor crossing in municipal councils, and Act 20 of 2002, which amends the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act. The second set consists of Act 22 of 2002, the membership Act, which removes the existing prohibition on floor crossing in the National Assembly and the nine provincial legislatures, and Act 21 of 2002, referred to as the Second Amendment Act, which further amends the Constitution to cater for corresponding changes to the composition of the National Council of Provinces.
The court stressed that the merits or demerits of the disputed legislation were not in issue. That was a political question of no concern to the court. What was to be decided was not whether the disputed provisions were appropriate, but whether they were constitutional. It held that amendments to the Constitution duly passed in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution became part of the Constitution and that there was little scope for challenging constitutional amendments passed in accordance with these prescribed procedures and majorities.
The UDM and others contended in court that the right to vote and proportional representation are part of the basic structure of the Constitution and as such are not subject to amendment at all. But the court held that the electoral system adopted in our Constitution is one of many that are consistent with democracy; some containing antidefection clauses, others not; some proportional, others not. Proportional representation and the antidefection provisions which support it are not so fundamental to our constitutional order as to preclude any amendment.
The UDM and others also contended that the disputed legislation was inconsistent with the founding values of the Constitution, in particular the value of multiparty democracy and the rule of law. The court held that a prohibition on floor crossing is not an essential component of multiparty democracy, nor of proportional representation, nor of the rule of law. The Constitution does not demand an antidefection provision. It provided for an antidefection clause in the case of members of the National Assembly and provincial legislatures only, and then only for a limited transitional period, and specifically allows that it be amended during the transition by an Act of Parliament.
The general conclusion the court arrived at was, therefore, that the substantive part of floor-crossing legislation for national, provincial and local government was not, as such, inconsistent with the Constitution. There was, however, a procedural objection which the court held was fatal to the legislation pertaining to national and provincial legislatures. In adopting the membership Act, Parliament chose to use the special transitional mechanism allowing for the introduction of floor crossing by ordinary legislation in accordance with section 76 of the Constitution. This mechanism was, however, part of the transitional provisions and was expressly to be exercisable within a reasonable period after the new Constitution took effect. As we all know, that date was 4 February 1997.
The court concluded that in the context of the transitional provisions that apply only until the next elections in 2004, the period of more than five years that had elapsed since the Constitution came into force can hardly be said to be a reasonable period. This conclusion was reinforced by the circumstance that in June 1998 this Parliament, in a committee of Parliament, found that the floor crossing should not be introduced. This issue was only revived after the break-up of the Democratic Alliance and consequential political re-alignments since 2001. Therefore, although Parliament could have done away with the antidefection provision entirely, the method decided upon was no longer valid. The membership Act was inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid because of this procedural defect of passing the Bill with an ordinary majority in terms of the said section 76, instead of a two-thirds majority in terms of section 74(3). This despite the fact that the National Assembly passed the Bill with more than an 80% majority.
This is a typical example of ``damned if you do, damned if you don’t’’. The committee and the National Assembly had the choice of using the procedure in item 23A, which was and is still part of our Constitution, or the procedure prescribed for ordinary constitutional amendments in terms of section 74(3). When the choice was presented, if we were not to use the procedure that is today still in item 23A, the argument could have been that we did not use that procedure, we shouldn’t have used the constitutional amendment. If we did it the other way around, as we did, then, equally, the court could have found the way they did. And until the court actually made a value judgment on which procedure to use, the committee and this House clearly were not clear on where we should go with it, and that is the way we went.
In the result, the challenge to the floor-crossing legislation was upheld insofar as it pertains to the national and provincial legislatures because of that procedural defect and dismissed in terms of national, provincial and local government in respect of the substantive objections and in relation to local government in respect of the procedural objections. Accordingly, floor crossing was not permitted in the national and provincial legislatures, as we all know, but was permitted at local government level.
As we know, because of the interim court orders, members of municipal councils were not able to cross the floor during the initial 15-day period. The court held that the will of Parliament had been blocked, despite the fact that that law was constitutional, and therefore the court decided it would be just and equitable to allow a 15-day period, to run from 8 October 2002, during which floor crossing could take place in the local government sphere. All that is now history.
Of course, what is not well known is the following. With regard to all those parties that opposed this legislation - and they told us they did so on the basis of principle - of course, when people crossed the floor to them, the principles flew out the window and they accepted the people that crossed the floor. In fact, it will be very interesting when we see today whether they vote against this legislation and whether, if people try to cross the floor again, the principles will go out the window and they will accept the people that cross the floor to them. I wonder what one calls that. The last time I looked it was called ``hypocrisy’’, but I’m not too sure.
The second judgment held that the High Court orders suspending the operation of the legislation contained in constitutional amendments pending determination of its validity by the Constitutional Court were too wide and should not have been made. This is a very important judgment and we have to emphasise this. The court held that even if it assumed but did not decide that High Courts do have the power to make such orders, it would be an interference with the legislative and executive functions of Government and may negate the separation of powers and should be used only in exceptional circumstances to prevent serious irreparable harm. The court held that no such case was made out in the High Court to show irreparable harm. Also, as appeared at the urgent hearing of the Constitutional Court, less invasive relief would have preserved the interests of all concerned. Government’s appeal in this regard was upheld. And it is very important that we emphasise this, because the court had pointed out, as we did in our public statements, that if there was any confusion before the High Court gave the judgment, there was absolute pandemonium once they gave the judgment.
The question then remains: What are we proposing as a committee in this fourth amendment to rectify the procedural defect identified by the Constitutional Court in respect of the membership Bill?
Provision is firstly made for the deletion of the bulk of item 23A from Schedule 6 in the Constitution, in accordance with the constitutional decision. That is no longer operative as a transitional arrangement. Secondly, section 43(3) in the national sphere and section 106(3) in the provincial sphere have been added to the Constitution to make provision for a further ground upon which the member may lose membership of a legislature, namely if he or she changes their membership of a party, other than in accordance with the new Schedule 6A. Thirdly, a new Schedule 6A is added to the Constitution, the contents being very similar to the same schedule applicable for the local government sphere, which has been found by the Constitutional Court to be constitutional.
The Constitutional Court also expressed certain views without deciding the issue in respect of item 9 of Schedule 6, a clause similar to item 23A, but relating to the local sphere of government. To avoid any further disputes in this regard, this provision is being deleted, relying on the court’s negative views expressed in relation to this item 9 and the said item 23.
Special mention also needs to be made of item 6(3) of Schedule 6A in the Bill, as originally introduced, but now being deleted. This is the so- called clause on retrospectivity, restoring the membership of a member who had allegedly lost their membership of a legislature because of the provision of the four pieces of legislation passed in June 2002. The committee is fully supportive of the removal of this provision, as prior to its removal the committee already questioned both the constitutionality and the desirability of such a provision.
With regard to the second amendment Bill before us, which is the Third Amendment Bill, the bulk thereof is going to be dealt with by my colleagues from finance and local government. It is just left to me to say that we went through an exhaustive process of dealing with this matter. This Bill has already previously been before this Parliament in the form of a constitutional amendment, was referred back for further consultation and then came back to Parliament. From the inputs we received, there has been enormous consensus around what is being proposed.
On the substantive provisions of these amendments, specifically section 139, there are now three forms of intervention being provided for. There is the one that is in the Constitution now, where you can intervene where executive obligations are not being performed by local government. The provincial government can then intervene and assume responsibility. We have also added that if it is very serious, and in exceptional circumstances, they can take even more drastic steps in this regard. Secondly, if the local government does not pass certain legislative measures, then we’ve provided that the provincial government can take appropriate steps, including dissolving the council. Thirdly, where there are financial problems, there is firstly provision made that local government can adopt a recovery plan. If that recovery plan is not being implemented by local government, then provincial government can dissolve, in the case of legislative measures not being complied with, and assume responsibility in the case of executive powers not being applied.
I just finally want to say that I would like to echo the words of our Minister in terms of the congratulations and the tremendous work that Comrade Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele has been able to perform in front of this Parliament. I have always, in my dealings with her, found her to be a person of incredible integrity and dignity and there is always an air of mutual respect when one deals with you. May we all wish you well in your endeavours and thank you very much for what you’ve done, particularly in the area of housing policy for this Parliament. Thank you very much.
Mr M A MNCWANGO: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers and colleagues, for nine years we have been working together to build a new republic which can bring our country social stability and economic prosperity. We have pledged our efforts to build the type of governance which can be an example to the whole of Africa and indeed, the whole world.
The passing today of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill marks one of the darkest moments and lowest points in the history of our new-found republic. This Bill is one of the worst cases of tampering with the Constitution I have ever heard of and represents one of the lowest levels of morality in politics. Amending the Constitution should be a serious, momentous and well-conducted exercise undertaken for important reasons of public and national interest.
For this reason, during the negotiation process, the IFP sought to entrench a provision requiring a cooling-off period to avoid exactly what is happening in this House today, namely the amendment of the Constitution to accommodate short-term sectoral interests. I cannot see what the pressing matter of public or national interest is which prompts this amendment. From a public policy viewpoint, there is just no reason for it. We are in the process of drafting a new electoral law which, after 2004, could have allowed for the crossing of the floor. If this matter was deemed urgent, the urgency could have been attached to the work of the Van Zyl Slabbert task team and to the finalisation of the new electoral law in time for the 2004 elections.
There was no need for a constitutional amendment, unless provision had to be made for the crossing of the floor between now and 2004. In law and in politics the only purpose of this piece of legislation is to enable the crossing of the floor in the next 14 months. There is no reason to bring about this change to our electoral system which unilaterally modifies the fundamental contract between the voters and their elected representatives.
Political parties chose candidates knowing that they could not cross the floor. Voters chose political parties knowing that their candidates could not cross the floor. After votes were cast, the rules of the mandate have changed and the electoral will has been altered, not through the ballot box, but by means of legislative edict. We must ask ourselves, ``Why?’’.
The appointment of the Van Zyl Slabbert task team was delayed in Parliament for over a year. When responding to questions in this House, the President justified this delay, claiming that certain matters had first to be brought into operation before the task team could be given the green light. It then emerged that no such matters existed and the proposal left Cabinet without changes, but one year behind schedule.
Within the task team, the ruling party did its best to boycott the task team’s mandate, that of drafting a new electoral law in time for the 2004 elections. They opted to leave the present electoral law unchanged and to shift any change to the electoral system to 2009 only. That was a reasonable venue in which the entire debate on the crossing of the floor should have taken place.
The present piece of legislation has nothing to do with the break-up of the DA either, as it relates only to national and provincial legislatures elected when the DA did not exist. The real purpose of this piece of legislation is different.
Throughout the decades, our continent has been torn apart by coups d’état and the subversion of the rule of law. Over and over again the rule of law and constitutionalism have been warped to prevent people from losing power or to enable them to seize power. I cannot help but think that the real purpose of this piece of legislation is to bring about a coup d’état by edict in KwaZulu-Natal. I suspect that this Bill is about shifting the premiership of KwaZulu-Natal from the IFP to the ANC … [Interjections] … not by means of an election, but by tampering with the Constitution. [Interjections.]
It may be important to state that no one is against anyone’s democratic right to change their minds, but that is not what is happening. Both last year and now, this was done through chequebook politics. Members of other parties were offered large sums of money to join the ruling party. [Interjections.] As I speak, an intense campaign of recruitment is taking place in KwaZulu-Natal. IFP members have been approached by representatives of the ruling party with promises of high office and substantial cash payments if they cross the floor to the ANC. [Interjections.]
This piece of legislation is about enabling chequebook politics to support a coup d’état in KwaZulu-Natal. It has got nothing whatsoever to do with any matter of principle. It is not about enabling people to express their political conscience freely, but about enabling them to sell their political soul. One needs to go no further than this House to prove the point, as one of those who defected from the IFP last year did so ostensibly on the grounds of resisting his redeployment to Cape Town. And where is he now? He is now a member of this very House. [Interjections.]
We oppose this Bill because we uphold the Constitution and our democracy. The Constitution is being amended merely for the sake of expediency and to accommodate a political plot. The Constitution is being undermined to consummate the consolidation of a one-party state in South Africa. The imminent coup d’état in KwaZulu-Natal will consolidate a one-party state, and will begin creating the conditions in which real democracy, robust debate, a plurality of viewpoints and policies, and real freedom of speech and action can no longer flourish.
We must be aware of what we are doing in this House today because it could be the beginning of the end of all the dreams of freedom, democracy and progress, which we have all held so dear for so long. [Interjections.]
On a lighter note, with regard to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill, the IFP supports it. It is understandable that it seeks to put in place measures to assist the local municipalities when they encounter serious problems, such as the approval of budgets, revenue- raising mechanisms and others. In the event that that happens, the relevant provincial executives must intervene by taking appropriate steps and measures that will ensure that the budget and revenue-raising measures are adopted to enable the smooth functioning of the local authorities.
Finally, on behalf of the IFP, we want to thank the Minister of Housing for her contribution to this Parliament and to South Africa.
Uhambe kahle, Mama. [Go well, Mama]
Thank you. [Applause.]
Ms F I CHOHAN-KHOTA: Chairperson, I would have thought that one of the benefits to the IFP has been that they have found in the DP a very salient partner in KwaZulu-Natal. We have heard from the previous speaker the suggestions of unconstitutionality and the undermining of democracy. I just find that outrageous. In dealing with these kinds of claims, one only has to look at the Constitutional Court judgment in the UDM case in October 2002, which we all know the UDM lost hopelessly. In its judgment, the court held very simply that floor crossing is not inconsistent with our Constitution.
The court also indicated that our Constitution, in its very design, provided for an antidefection clause in the case of members of the National Assembly and provincial legislatures only, and then only for a limited period, and specifically allowed for it to be amended during the transition by Parliament. That must take care of the claim that crossing is unconstitutional and undermines democracy.
As to the claim, further, that it undermines our freedom in that it is inconsistent with the founding values of the Constitution, in particular the value of multiparty democracy, the Constitutional Court had this to say: ``A prohibition on floor crossing is not an essential component of a multiparty democracy, nor of proportional representation.’’ The defection regime exists in many democracies around the world and exists in constituency-based systems, as well as in PR systems.
That there may be concerns amongst ourselves and the broader public that the defection regime may be abused, or that political instability may result, is of course pertinent. Limiting floor crossing as we have done to two window periods in the life of the legislature, and the introduction of a 10% threshold is directed at addressing these and other concerns. That these measures themselves are not foolproof, and that they do favour bigger parties, is ultimately true. Ultimately though, a defection regime is only one part of a broader political system, and will only be as good or as bad as that system is.
It must be true that if the political system itself is flawed, the defection regime will only reflect this deficiency, such as was the case during the tricameral Parliament of the mid to late 80s. Where we find ourselves now as a country surely is a far cry from there. It is not often in this House, Chairperson, that one can praise the DP for anything at all, let alone for being principled. This is, of course, because they really are principled, and when they are principled, their principles are wrong. I am pleased to say that, after nearly eight years in this House, I am in the pleasant position of praising them for the first time. Despite some opposition from populists within their ranks, despite the loss of hordes and hordes and hordes and hordes of members, despite nearly being obliterated in some municipalities, not to mention the province of the Western Cape - where, incidentally if you listen really, really carefully, you can still hear the echoes of the collective sigh of relief of Capetonians - and despite all that trauma, they will still be voting for this amendment, and I for one think that it is the height of, not stupidity, but courage. It is the same courage displayed by the soldier who, when he fights back when his side is completely beaten and battered, stands up and gets shot in the leg, and because he is a committed fighting- back player, he struggles once again and stands up and is shot in the other leg, and then, for the third time he rises, having forgotten of course that he only has two legs, and then raises his head. That can’t be stupidity; that is obviously, you know, courage.
Of course, I can’t shower enormous amounts of praise on people like the UDM who say that they are, in principle, against floor crossing, so much so that they put all they have into taking the matter to the Constitutional Court. Why? Because they say they are protecting the principle of democracy on behalf the electorate. Well, the electorate should know that they have benefited from this law, and that they have welcomed, with open arms, those who have crossed the floor from other parties. So much for being principled!
Before I get carried away with, of course, praising the DP, as I have, for remaining principled and before they start asking for a group hug, let me point to the sour experience of today. When this House said goodbye to hon members Jannie Momberg, the most Reverend Stofile and Max Sisulu, we said goodbye to these members in a rather befitting and, I thought, respectable manner. This very principled DP never raised any objection then. But for some reason, they have a problem, in principle, with according the same befitting farewell to the hon Minister of Housing.
Minister, who knows what you have done to irk this very principled DP? It must have been something in principle. Let me please add my voice to those who have thanked you before for your immeasurable contribution towards improving the lives of our people. And thank you for showing enormous amounts of courage and bigness in the face of some very small human beings in the past. At least you know you won’t have to suffer them again. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mrs S M CAMERER: Thank you, Chairperson. If I may also make use of the concession that has been afforded to us, on behalf of the New NP, I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Minister of Housing well in her new incarnation as Deputy Secretary-General of the ANC. The hon Sankie Mthembi-Mahanyele is the first woman in South Africa to hold the Housing portfolio, and she has filled the post in a male-dominated domain with dignity and competence. [Applause.]
I believe she was also the first woman to act as President of the Republic of South Africa. [Applause.] Here, she missed a golden opportunity to reshuffle the Cabinet to get to that 50/50 gender balance, or even better, that we would all have liked to see. We believe the hon Minister did a sterling job in providing the poor people of our country with housing, and our best wishes go with her.
Chairperson, the New NP supports both the Third and Fourth Amendment Bills, in numerical order. The Third Amendment Bill has had a long and slow and tortuous gestation period and birth. The main focus of the Bill was to regulate, through provincial or national intervention, a situation where a municipality failed to manage its affairs or is plunged into a financial crisis. After a false start over a year ago, where our Treasury tabled a Bill that was extremely problematic constitutionally speaking and had to be sent back, an enormous amount of work has been done by the two departments and their corresponding committees of Parliament, namely, Finance and Justice.
A product is now on the Table that we can all support. The New NP would like to express its appreciation to all concerned for all the hard work involved. Clearly, some mechanism is needed to allow provincial and national government to supervise and intervene where a municipality is tottering on the brink of collapse, and to inspire confidence in municipal administration by investors.
The circumstances under which supervision or intervention may take place, its parameters and purposes are all spelt out in some detail in the Bill. A pecking order is established so that the supervisory role of provincial government in relation to local government is preserved and endorsed. The process of review by the NCOP is spelt out and procedures are simplified, and the parameters for intervention by national Government, in both local and provincial governments, is closely defined.
As far as the Fourth Amendment Bill is concerned, it is hardly surprising that all participants in this debate have a sense of déjà vu. We have all been here before quite recently, on 11 June last year, to be precise. What has changed is form, not content, and of course now we have the benefit of the guidance of the Constitutional Court to ensure that this floor-crossing legislation for national and provincial levels of government will not be technically deficient. We believe this time we have it right.
The necessity for this legislation has not diminished in the interim and, as before, the New NP supports this legislation. The New NP believes it is necessary for the purposes of a bigger process of realignment in our politics - away from the stereotypes of black and white. Without floor- crossing legislation which allows elected representatives at all three levels of government to find a new political home in between general elections, this realignment process would be inhibited. Local government realignment has been successfully completed. It would be illogical and inconsistent not to complete the intended process and allow floor crossing at national and provincial levels of government as well. In the New NP’s view, there should be uniformity for all political parties’ public representatives. The governing party has committed itself to putting this legislation in place and we support the governing party in this instance.
There is a lot of fallacious thinking and argument around this issue. The main argument against floor crossing is the hostage theory of public representation, namely that having been given a mandate as a representative of one political party, that representative should feel bound into that mandate for five years between elections. This is particularly strongly argued in the case of politicians who have been elected, as we have, on a list system - namely proportional representation. According to this theory, public representatives are or should be held hostage by the party under whose banner they were elected no matter what, but that theory ignores a number of factors.
Firstly, a member has or should have a conscience and should on serious and important issues be entitled to follow the dictates of his or her conscience, hopefully not chequebook, as was alleged earlier.
Secondly, things change - public sentiment and changes around issues. The majority of party representatives may feel differently about an issue. So the policy of a party may change even radically.
If a week is a long time in politics, five years is a lifetime and may well be a political lifetime for a politician or even a party. The hostage theory ignores voter realignments between elections. A case in point is the rise and fall of the DA at local government level where New NP councillors were, until floor-crossing Bills became law for local government last October, held hostage in a party they wished to leave. Thirdly, in many democracies worldwide, even where they have proportional representation, provision is made for crossing the floor. It cannot therefore be argued that an antidefection clause is inherent in a proportional system. In the light of the Constitutional Court’s judgment last October, it can also no longer be argued that the scrapping of the antidefection clause is incompatible with our Constitution, as the court has specifically endorsed the principle of floor crossing. Therefore, while it is a fact that floor-crossing legislation endorsed by the Constitutional Court for local government was a force for political realignment, it is clearly appropriate that the same measure of flexibility and potential for change should be introduced at other levels of government.
Questions may be raised about the timing of this legislation. Firstly, why now? The answer must be that outside the possibility of a costly, special emergency session, this was in fact the first opportunity for the Bill to come before the House after the Constitutional Court delivered its ruling in October. The Government published and tabled its proposed amendment Bill very shortly after the court had ruled the crossing package of legislation to be technically defective as far as the first two tiers of government were concerned. The prescribed waiting period had not been completed by the time Parliament was in recess and, to give the Government its due, today is the first legislative day of the new parliamentary year.
Secondly, why make changes to our electoral system now piecemeal when a new system is to be announced in terms of the Van Zyl Slabbert commission recommendations? The truth is that the system seems unlikely to change for the 2004 election, as has indeed been confirmed by the hon leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party. It is argued that the lack of a constituency-based system takes away any independence for MPs. MPs on a list are totally in thrall to the party bosses who wield disproportionate power. However, a managed system of crossing would mitigate against that system to some extent until any new electoral system is put in place. The New NP supports both Bills. Thank you, Chairman. [Applause.]
Mr J T MASEKA: Chairperson, hon members, I would just like to respond to the speech by the hon Adv de Lange and hon Chohan-Khota that the UDM is a disciplined and well-principled party. [Interjections.] I will say that if the referee has given you a goal, even if it was an offside goal, if he said it was a goal, then it is a goal. [Interjections.] The Constitutional Court has given a ruling, and the UDM respects that ruling.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill amends the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 so as to enable members of the National Assembly or a provincial legislature to become members of another party whilst retaining their seat in the National Assembly or that of the provincial legislature. In June 2002, this Parliament passed four Acts that aimed to allow members of the national, provincial and local government to cross the floor without losing their seats, and this was amending the antidefection clause in the Constitution.
It is a known fact that the UDM challenged the four pieces of legislation passed by this Parliament in the Constitutional Court to have all Acts declared unconstitutional and invalid. The UDM argued that the four pieces of legislation would undermine the basic structure of the Constitution; are inconsistent with the founding values of the Constitution; and lastly, that they are inconsistent with the voters’ rights and that voters voted for the party and not individuals. The UDM contends that, in 1999, voters voted for the parties under the proportional representation system and an antidefection clause was then in force. The wish and the will of the voters was to vote for the party because of its policies and this was part of the basic structure of the South African Constitution and it is immoral to change the electoral system in midterm.
At present, the proportional representation system is an integral part of the Constitution and therefore members cannot change party membership midterm. However, the Constitutional Court ordered that it was not unconstitutional for members to change their party membership at local government level, but that the Acts enabling loss or retention of membership of national and provincial legislature are inconsistent with the Constitution and were declared invalid.
The Van Zyl Slabbert commission is to come up with a proposal as to which electoral system is to be followed in South Africa and this piece of legislation should not be passed until Parliament decides on the proposal by the commission. So the UDM is not supporting this Bill.
The Constitution of South Africa Third Amendment Bill amends the Constitution of South Africa to regulate certain financial matters to be dealt with in terms of section 76(1) of the Constitution. The name Northern Province is changed to Limpopo. The Bill further intends to regulate provincial intervention in local government and to further regulate the process of review by the National Council of Provinces where there has been national executive intervention in provincial government and provincial executive intervention in local government.
The national executive may intervene where the province does not fulfil its obligations in terms of the Constitution by taking appropriate steps to make it possible that obligations are fulfilled. However, the national executive must submit a written notice of the intervention to the National Council of Provinces within 14 days after the intervention began, and the intervention must end within 180 days if the Council disapproves the intervention. The provincial executive may intervene where a municipality cannot or does not fulfil its executive obligations in terms of the Constitution by taking any appropriate action deemed necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation by the particular municipality.
I would like to take the few seconds that remain to say these few words to the Minister of Housing: The UDM really appreciates your contributions in this House and in this Government. We say: Good luck, wherever you go. Thank you very much.
Ms B A HOGAN: Mr Chair, I am speaking on the Constitution of South Africa Third Amendment Bill which deals with the powers of an MEC for Local Government to intervene in local government affairs.
Before I start, I just want to give some background for this intervention, lest we see this as a completely arbitrary matter unrelated to a sphere that could be used politically and also unrelated to serious concerns in a municipality. I want to give just a background to some of the issues which have arisen in some municipalities. I won’t give names.
For instance, in one municipality - for lack of clarity about a legal situation - a gridlock developed. Municipal workers went on strike, there were payment boycotts, political in-fighting, lawsuits and near-complete service breakdown.
In another municipality, chaos resulted from both council and administrative problems. Three of the seven councillors resigned. A fourth was in ill health and there could not be a quorum. Wages and benefits could not be paid to workers.
In another municipality, provincial intervention was slow, three short-term approaches did not work, and there was a complete breakdown in services.
In another one, a chronic and unsustainable imbalance between income and expenditure led to basic services being interrupted and workers not being paid.
These interventions are focused on situations when there is a crisis in a municipality. It is not focused on those municipalities that are managing well.
Yes, in terms of this Constitution, in section 139(1), there is a provision for the MEC, as has always been in this Constitution, to intervene when an executive obligation is not being met, and that the MEC can use whatever appropriate measures are available, including a letter stating an executive obligation that has been made and what should be done to meet that obligation.
But these powers were insufficient, and too imprecise to allow for an effective intervention. This Bill provides for more effective powers of intervention; it provides for more decisive intervention; it provides for a greater range of interventions and it also provides for the interests of stakeholders such as citizens of a municipality and for lenders’ and creditors’ interests to be met.
Let us go into the provisions of this Bill. This Bill, as I have said, allows for intervention by an MEC when an executive obligation is not being met. It allows for the MEC to actually take over the functions of that executive obligation. But what remains completely imprecise and unclear is: What happens when the scale of the problem is so enormous that the MEC would effectively have to take over the whole running of the municipality? What happens when there is a legislative breakdown in a municipality, when a budget is not passed, and when a council has not met for months and months?
An MEC is not entitled, in terms of the Constitution as it stands, to intervene because the MEC can only intervene for an executive breakdown.
So, it’s for those two concerns that we are bringing in these changes, and these concerns are also prompted by creditors of a municipality and the residents of a municipality. A creditor who lends money to a municipality can find himself locked in a bureaucratic nightmare when the municipality breaks down.
Very briefly, these are the steps which an MEC can now take: An MEC is now obliged to intervene, and must intervene if a municipality fails to pass a budget. Once a municipality has reached the stage of a crisis where it cannot pass a budget, an MEC must take whatever steps necessary to try to reach the municipality for it to change its budget, so, if there are political problems, they have to try and resolve those political problems. The MEC must try to get that budget passed, failing which the MEC must dissolve the council, call for new elections and install an administrator. The MEC is required to do that now, because the MEC can’t force the legislature to pass the budget. The MEC must simply dissolve the council and call for new elections. This is so because if a budget is not passed, a municipality cannot spend money. So, you are faced with an immediate crisis. That is the first major intervention.
The second major intervention is for financial reasons or, if a municipality is in a crisis, and this leads to a basic breakdown in services, that is, a chronic and serious and persistent breakdown in services, or if the municipality admits that it cannot meet its financial obligations, then the MEC is bound to intervene, and must intervene. The MEC - and this is the very innovative part of the Constitution - must then impose a financial recovery plan which will bring that council out of the financial crisis in which it finds itself. Obviously, the MEC would seek the co-operation of the council. If that co-operation is not forthcoming and the council refuses to pass that financial recovery plan, the MEC can then dissolve that council and call for new elections. If however that council is not dissolved but does not have the capacity or the ability to implement that financial recovery plan, even though it has the goodwill to do so, that MEC can then take over those functions of the council which it is not able to meet.
This might appear drastic to some, but for those who are on the receiving end of councils who have continued to flounder, who have continued not to provide basic services, who do not provide certainty to creditors who would want to invest in infrastructural programmes in that municipality, these mechanisms are absolutely essential to restore confidence in our local area of government.
Let me say that this is not designed to allow manipulative MECs to shut down councils that might be dominated by political parties of a persuasion other than that of the MEC. It would be mischievous to make those statements. All along the line, there are checks and balances built in, from supervision and oversight from the NCOP and other parties and the Cabinet Ministers. The courts can also be resorted to at any stage of this process. This cannot be manipulated for political measures, and it would be at the political cost of an MEC to engage in anything as reckless as that.
This amendment to our Constitution is to give decisiveness to an MEC, to a council, to residents, and to lenders and creditors of what can be expected if there is a fundamental breakdown in our councils. And let us not pretend as if this does not exist.
I would like to take this opportunity, too, of, firstly mourning the departure of our Minister of Housing and congratulating her too for the position which she is going to occupy. Comrade Sankie has always been a Minister who has never sought the limelight but sought to be in the engine room of hard work. And we have seen, by golly, the results of that hard work. As an ordinary MP who sits in this House, you have been one of the members who has always been so approachable and so open to discussion. I have often been able to stop you in the corridors here and say: ``Comrade Sankie, this is an issue’’, and you have been responsive and open to that. I want to thank you for that. Your approach and the way that you have managed your portfolio has given us all enormous confidence in this House, and I really do wish you well in your new and demanding post. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Chairman, hon Minister, at the outset I would like to say the ACDP supports the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill relating to municipal interventions.
As far as the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill’s concerned, which refers to the floor crossing, the ACDP was one of the parties that opposed the package of legislative amendments seeking to allow floor crossing, both in Parliament and in the Constitutional Court. We remain opposed to elected representatives crossing the floor, believing that this negates the will of the voters, particularly as far as national and provincial tiers are concerned.
We do however accept that there is a mixed PR and ward system on local government level and that a stronger argument can be made permitting a ward or independent councillor to cross the floor, as opposed to the national and provincial spheres which are solely proportional. We believe that as far as the national and provincial spheres are concerned, an antidefection clause is essential in order to defend a most fundamental principle that parliamentary laws must be made by representatives who are elected by and consequently reflect the will of the voters.
We remain in agreement with the Electoral Task Team’s submission that citizens voted primarily for the party of their choice and its leader, and not so much for the candidates on the party list whom the vast majority of voters did not know.
A lot of attention was given to the Constitutional Court’s decision, and we are in agreement that, in the October 2002 judgment, the merits or the demerits of floor-crossing were not the issue. That was a political decision of no concern to the court. What the court had to decide was not whether the disputed floor-crossing provisions were appropriate or inappropriate, but whether they were constitutional.
We also appreciate that the Constitutional Court said that the Constitution, constitutionally, does not demand an antidefection clause. However, the previous comments made by the Constitutional Court in its 1996 certification judgment do indicate its comments on the desirability, seen then in the context of a transitional arrangement until 2004. And we believe that those views warrant repeating as they reflect the views of a large number of voters who feel totally disenfranchised by the floor- crossing provisions.
The Constitutional Court in 1996 at that time, and in the context of the transitional arrangement, stated that an antidefection clause, firstly, promotes accountability of members to the electorate. I would like to quote the court. It said:
It obliges members of a party, who are elected by virtue of the inclusion of their names on the party’s list, to remain loyal to that party. That meets the expectation of voters who gave their support to the party.
Secondly, the court said:
It can act as an additional check on legislators who are accountable not only to the electorate and the legislature, but also to their parties.
And thirdly, it said it is supportive of multiparty democracy, and I quote:
It also prevents parties in power from enticing members of small parties to defect from the party upon whose list they were elected to join the governing party. If this were permitted, it could enable the governing party to obtain a special majority which it might not otherwise be able to muster and which is not a reflection of the views of the electorate.
The court accepted that the main reasons for the inclusion of the clause are to secure a more stable government and to avoid corruption in legislatures - again, said in the context of a transitional provision until 2004.
The ACDP believes that floor crossing can lead, and has led to a change in the balance of power in elected structures such as municipal councils. On a provincial level, the result can be that a province can be subject to minority rule by a government not elected by the voters. It was this possibility that caused the political instability in KwaZulu-Natal earlier this year, and almost resulted in the dissolution of the provincial legislature.
It is significant that each of us MPs represent approximately 40 000 voters. The consequences of defection taking place at national and provincial levels are therefore far greater than at a municipal level as the will of a far larger number of voters would be negated.
Whilst, therefore, we welcome the removal of the clause providing retrospective protection to those MPs and MPLs who crossed the floor prematurely, we are, for the reasons I have mentioned, unable to support the constitutional amendments permitting floor crossing at a national and provincial level.
May I in conclusion, on behalf of the ACDP, also give our best wishes to the outgoing Minister of Housing and wish her the very best in her new portfolio. Under her leadership, she has tried to change the lack of administrative capacity in provincial and municipal government. We recognise her difficult task and commend her on her past efforts.
I thank you, and may God bless you. [Applause.]
Mr M T MASUTHA: Chairperson, hon members and colleagues, allow me to start by echoing the sentiments of many before me in expressing our most sincere gratitude - and I am sure that we are doing so on behalf of the majority of the poor of our country - to the hon Minister Sankie Inkondo for the excellent contribution she has made, not only in the fight to get people houses and roofs over their heads, but also in the fight against poverty and destitution. I think that in both her previous capacity as Deputy Minister of Social Development, the department previously known as Welfare and Population Development, as well as in her current position as Minister of Housing, she has made an excellent contribution to the ANC’s struggle to fight poverty and to empower the most disempowered. We express our sincere gratitude to you, hon Minister. [Applause.]
Allow me to proceed to deal with the subject before us which involves two Bills proposing amendments to our Constitution, namely, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill, respectively. It is the latter which deals with the floor-crossing question that I now wish to address you on. During June last year, Parliament passed four pieces of legislation aimed at allowing the possibility for crossing the political floor at all three levels of government. Although this legislation was challenged - unsuccessfully, I wish to emphasise - before the Constitutional Court, a technical flaw in the legislation identified by the court necessitated the introduction of this constitutional amendment to complete the purported constitutional reform.
Whilst the constitutionality debate was finally put to rest when the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment on the matter, it also triggered an extensive and vibrant public debate in the media and elsewhere about the desirability, or otherwise, of permitting floor crossing.
In its judgment, the Court alludes to the fact that the floor-crossing debate has been with us since the days of Codesa when the interim constitution was being negotiated. Although South Africa prohibited floor crossing under the interim constitution, provision was made at the same time for the possibility of such a ban on floor crossing to be lifted through legislation to that effect, which legislation is now before us.
The Constitutional Court also alluded to the fact that, already, within a week of the current Constitution coming into operation, that is, in 1997, Parliament had appointed a committee to consider the drafting of legislation on floor crossing. After a year of deliberation on the issue, the committee recommended that the ban on defection be revisited after the 1999 elections and, in this regard, the committee, amongst others, had the following to say:
The basic argument for this approach is that during the term of the
legislature there can be significant shifts in public opinion which do
not warrant fresh elections, but which have to be represented in the
legislature. By allowing groups of MPs to cross the floor'', these
shifts of opinion may be reflected in the legislature. Also, genuine
differences of interpretation on what mandate the electorate gave a
party, and how to implement it, can lead to splits in the party, and this
should be allowed expression by way ofcrossing of the floor’’. The
ability to cross the floor also curtails the power of …
To use the words of the committee …
… party bosses'' and makes for a more vibrant political atmosphere.
In short, greater democracy and representivity is more possible through a
qualified freedom tocross the floor’’.
The applicants in the Constitutional Court argued that the intention behind the legislation is to enable the ANC and the New NP to take advantage of the breaking up of the DA, and that this is inconsistent with the rule of law doctrine, which is entrenched in our Constitution. This principle requires that legislation must be rationally linked to a ``legitimate government purpose’’. If it is not, it is inconsistent with the rule of law and invalid.
The Court, on this point, found that the argument put forward sought to equate purpose with motive, and that courts are not concerned with motives of members of legislatures who vote in particular legislation nor with the consequence of legislation unless it infringes rights in the Constitution or is otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution.
The court thus stuck to the generally accepted democratic value of the separation of powers which entitles lawmakers to make the laws, and reserves to courts the power to interpret the law, and not to make it, as neatly captured in an old Roman law maxim ius dicere non facere.
During debates on this issue over the past year, criticism was levelled against the ANC’s initial rejection of floor crossing on the one hand, and its subsequent introduction of floor-crossing legislation on the other as a sign of lack of consistency in our policies.
Well, let me respond by saying that the ANC which led the struggle to bring about political change in South Africa knows enough about the importance of embracing change when its time has arrived and allowing it to find expression rather than resist it. Equally, the New NP knows more about the significance of embracing political change than some of the younger parties represented in this House, having had first-hand experience of the devastating consequences of resisting change over a half century of apartheid rule.
In this regard, I think it is useful to note the words of the famous former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who had something to say about the importance of embracing political change in his famous speech delivered during a joint sitting of Parliament in 1960 on 3 February. He had the following to say:
The most striking of all the impressions I have formed since I left London a month ago is of the strength of this African national consciousness. In different places, it may take different forms. But it is happening everywhere. The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact. Our national policies must take account of it.
I must say that it is most encouraging to have seen political parties such as the New NP come to the realisation that to be embroiled in an unholy marriage such as the one they were embroiled in with the DA was leading nowhere and that it was time for them to embrace change. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
We, nevertheless, embrace and support the DP’s position of taking a principled stance in supporting this legislation. [Applause.]
Dr C P MULDER: Mnr die Voorsitter, om die grondwet van ‘n land te wysig, is ‘n ingrypende saak. Dit word nie ligtelik gedoen nie. Die Grondwet word vandag hier gewysig om dit moontlik te maak vir lede van die Parlement en van provinsiale wetgewers om van een party na ‘n ander party oor te loop. Lede kan selfs oorloop na politieke partye wat nie eers aan die verkiesing deelgeneem het nie of wat nog nie eens bestaan nie. Is ons regtig ernstig oor demokrasie as ons dit toelaat?
Die vraag is: Hoe het ‘n lid hier gekom? Hy of sy het hier gekom deurdat vir elke lid ongeveer 40 000 kiesers daar buite vir daardie party gestem het. So verteenwoordig hy die wil en wense van 40 000 kiesers. Nou word daardie individuele lid toegelaat om hul wil en wense te ignoreer. Hul keuse word uitgekanselleer en die individu besluit vir hulle dat hy liewers na ‘n ander party wil oorloop met hulle stemme en hulle setel. Die vraag is: Is dit reg? Die VF sê, onomwonde, nee. Dit is nie reg nie. Dit is baie verkeerd. Daarom is hierdie ‘n slegte stuk wetgewing wat vandag voor die Parlement is. Lede in politieke partye moet die demokrasie en die wense van die kiesers respekteer.
Daarom wil die VF ‘n beroep op die publiek doen om politieke partye wat hierdie wetgewing steun by die stembus te straf. Ons wil ook ‘n beroep op hulle doen om partye soos die VF wat ten sterkste teen die wetgewing is, by die stembus te ondersteun. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, amending the constitution of a country is a drastic measure. It is not done lightly. The Constitution is being amended here today to enable members of Parliament and of provincial legislatures to defect from one party to another. Members may even cross over to political parties that did not even participate in the elections or that do not even exist. Are we really serious about democracy if we allow that?
The question is: How did a member manage to get here? He or she got here because approximately 40 000 voters out there voted for his or her party. Thus he represents the will and wishes of 40 000 voters. Now that individual member is allowed to ignore their will and wishes. Their choice is cancelled out and the individual decides on their behalf that he would rather cross to another party with their votes and their seat. The question is: Is that right? The FF says unequivocally, no! It is not right. It is very wrong. Therefore, this is a poor piece of legislation before Parliament today. Members of political parties should respect democracy and the wishes of the voters.
The FF therefore wants to call on members of the public to punish those political parties who support this legislation at the polls. We also want to call on them to support parties at the polls who, like the FF, are strongly opposed to this legislation.]
The Minister began his speech by reading from The Bible. I want to do the same. I read from Exodus 20, the eighth commandment:
You shall not steal.
[Interjections.]
Dit is skokkend, maar waar ons vandag staan, is daar agb lede van hierdie Parlement wat hierdie wetgewing wil gebruik om die stemme van die kiesers daar buite te steel en te kanselleer. Dit is ‘n skande. [It is shocking, but where we stand today, there are hon members of this Parliament who want to use this legislation to steal and to cancel the votes of voters out there. It is a shame.]
How can we allow members of this House to steal the votes of the electorate? What kind of example are we setting to the public?
Ons sal teen hierdie wetgewing stem. [We shall vote against this legislation.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, there is a point of order.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I think Dr Mulder knows that what he has just said is unparliamentary, and he should know that he should withdraw it.
Dr C P MULDER: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek is nie bereid om dit terug te trek nie. Dit is my oortuiging dat as ons dit toelaat, mense dit kan doen om stemme van die kiesers te steel. Ek sal nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Dr C P MULDER: Mr Chairman, I am not willing to withdraw that. It is my conviction that if we allow that, people will be able to steal votes from the voters. I will not. [Interjections.]]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon members, order! The process normally is that if the integrity or the character of a member is brought into question, the Chair would intervene and then give a ruling. In this case, it is basically a general comment in terms of what parties are doing. I would then say that we release the hon Mulder to go back to his seat. [Interjections.]
Mr B M SOLO: Chairperson, your Excellency the Deputy President, Ministers and hon members, it is now almost two years since the new system of local government has been introduced. This new democratic system has shown a lot of clarity on various matters, processes and procedures that seem to be vague. Of course as it is a new system, the implementation might have glitches and hitches, sometimes we would call them teething problems. It therefore becomes the task of the legislators to tie up the loose ends.
It is in this context that the constitutional amendments before us should be understood. The constitutional amendments would contribute to making municipalities effective in meeting constitutional obligations. As such, the amendment of section 139 attempts to do just that. The new clause (c) of section 139 of the Bill clearly states what has to be done to ensure that constitutional obligations are carried out. Clear processes and procedures are listed in section 2, particularly clause 2(a),(b) and (c) and clause 3 of the Bill. Municipalities have a very important role in our system of government - to provide services to communities and to promote social and economic development. Changes to the Constitution that will assist local government in meeting these objectives need to be welcomed by all of us. Overall, the amendment to section 139 has succeeded in balancing the need for supervision and monitoring in the national interest, with the imperative to ensure that the integrity of the local government sphere is not undermined.
The previous section 139 empowered the provincial executive to intervene in local government should this be deemed necessary, but it was under no obligation to do so. In the past, interventions were unsuccessful in financially rehabilitating municipalities because interventions mainly happened too late. The new section 139 identified three categories of intervention. I think they have been mentioned here, so I am not going to repeat them. Also, the revised section 139 is an improvement on the previous version for the following reasons: both the legislative responsibilities of a municipal council to adopt a budget and the executive responsibilities of municipalities to provide services to citizens are covered. The provincial executive has an enhanced role to monitor and also to support and intervene in local government in that it is obliged to intervene in budget-related and financial failures.
The obligation of the national executive to intervene instead of the provincial executive in certain instances will ensure that national Government assists where a province may not have the will or capacity to intervene in these instances. More options for provincial interventions are created, for instance, in terms of Government’s failures. It begins with the issuing of directives to municipality councils, the assumption of responsibilities for an executive obligation and the dissolution of a municipality council in exceptional circumstances. Timeframes are more realistic. For instance, interventions for service delivery or governance reasons must be terminated unless approved by the cabinet member responsible for local government within 28 days.
Overall, the current amendment seeks to expedite the process considerably, creating more certainty for all relevant stakeholders and ensuring that problems do not degenerate into financial collapse or a collapse of service delivery. They will also be complemented by the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill, which will be put in place with clear remedial processes through which investors and other stakeholders can reliably and predictably deal with defaults by municipalities in the instance of a financial crisis.
An important implication of the amendment is that capacity must be built in provincial and national Government to monitor, support and supervise local government timeously and effectively. This obligation is clearly articulated in section 154 of the Constitution, highlighting the fact that intervention is an option to be exercised as an absolute last resort only once other less intrusive measures have failed to yield positive results. Accordingly, we call upon all of us in this House to realise the need to support the constitutional amendments so that all of us, together with the communities out there, contribute towards pushing back the frontiers of poverty, as the hon …
… uNgqongqoshe wezeZindlu owenza umsebenzi omhle kakhulu ukuncedisana naboomasipala ngoba laphaya emakhaya abantu into abayaziyo kukuthola izindlu kuqala, okwesibini kukuthola amaservices. Sithanda ukuthi simbonge kakhulu. Simfisela okuhle la aya khona sinethemba elikhulu ukuthi uza kuncedisa ukuthi kubonakale ukuthi abantu bayazithola izidingo zabo. Andazi mandithini ukumbonga uNgqongqoshe ngoba abantu empeleni bajabulile kakhulu laphaya. Ziyathethwa izinto ezithethwayo ngezindlu ezincane nako konke lokho kodwa abantu beneempendulo. Sicela abantu bamaphepha ke khe baye ebantwini baye kubuza ukuthi baneliseke kangakanani na ngoba thina sibona abantu bengena ezindlwini kwaye bayatsho ngemilomo yabo abantu ukuthi isiqalo basinikiwe ngoba bebengenamali yokuthenga umhlaba, isitina kodwa ngoku basezindlwini. Bathi baza kubeka kancane bamane besongeza ukuze baqhubekele phambili. Yiko lokho uNgqongqoshe sibona ukuthi makabe phaya kulaa ndlu inkulu yeAfrican National Congress aze kukwazi ukubheka konke. Naboomasipala bayabonga ngoba akubalahlelanga ngezindlu ubafakele zonke izinto ezidingekayo, ugesi, amanzi, izindlela njalo njalo yaye sikunqwenelela okuhle la uya khona. Enkosi. [Kuyaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[… Minister of Housing, who does a very good job assisting municipalities because what people that live in rural areas want are houses first, and secondly, services. We would like to thank her greatly. We appreciate her efforts. We wish her good luck where she is going and hope that she will help see to it that people do get what they need. I do not have words good enough to thank the hon Minister, for people are quite satisfied out there. There may be a lot that is said about the houses being too small but people always have something to say. We ask that the media go and ask people whether they are not satisfied because we actually witness people going into new houses and with their own mouths they concur that they have been given something to work on as they did not have money to buy land and bricks before. They say that they are going to add on and move forward. That is why the hon Minister has been redeployed to the ANC Head Office. It is so that she can oversee everything. Municipalities also appreciate her role because she did not just give them empty houses, but she supplied all the infrastructure - electricity, water, roads, etc. We wish her all the best where she is going to be now. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Chairperson, as we debate the merits and demerits of this Bill, we are reminded of the recent debacle that occurred in Kwazulu- Natal that nearly triggered an outbreak of political violence as a result of the removal of the antidefection clause to allow elected representatives to cross the floor to the parties of their own choice. This was preceded by court cases to challenge the legality of floor-crossing legislation. Yes, this result was indeed a short-term victory for parties that took the Government to court. Rightfully so, our Constitution did not make such provision for elected representatives to defect to political parties of their choice, and this necessitated the amendment of the Constitution.
The issues that have to be confronted are not so much about court victories against the legislative strength of the ruling party. They revolve around the question as to the necessity of this constitutional amendment. What is it that we want to achieve? Who will benefit out of this amendment? We say the floor-crossing legislation was based on political expediency to compete for power in a manner that was not in the spirit of nation-building and reconciliation. We therefore applaud both the IFP and the ANC for allowing common sense to prevail in dealing with the issue.
This time, political parties and potential voters will by now know, when they get to the elections next year, that a person they vote for might defect to another party if the circumstances dictate otherwise. This amendment will also provide a mechanism to realign and balance the legislative strength of parties. This will force political parties to deliver on their election promises and if they are to attract any members in terms of floor crossing, this amendment in our view is not intended to promote the disobedience of elected representatives to do as they please but to deepen democracy. We therefore support the Bill in the current form. [Applause.]
Nksz N MAHLAWE: Mhlalingaphambili, nam andinakho ukuthula ndingayincomi imbokotho ethe yasila, yacola, yaba ngumzekelo omhle kuthi boomama balapha ePalamente, yangaphelelisi apho, yaba mgumzekelo omhle kubo bonke oomama kweli loMzantsi Afrika. Sithi ke kuye, aze enjenjalo nalapho aya khona, athi njengoko ecolisa nje xa esila, acolisise ngaphezulu. Malibongwe! [Uwelewele.] (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[Mrs N MAHLAWE: Chairperson, I cannot but commend the millstone that has ground so well and perfected things here and, as such, become a good example, not only to us as women in this Parliament, but to all women in South Africa too. We say to her that she should continue to do just that wherever she is going, and perfectly grind even more. Praise! [Interjections.]]
Mr Chairperson, hon Deputy President, hon Ministers and members of this House, allow me to first acknowledge that what I am going to express here has been obtained from some sources, namely, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the affidavits made by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and the affidavit of professor Robert Arthur Shrine, professor of political science at the University of Cape Town.
I am particularly making this acknowledgement, not because I fear being accused of plagiarism, but because I want to convert the unconverted who have a perception that these constitutional amendments are just an attempt by the ANC to attract more members to its fold. Actually, they have said so at this podium and I want to dispute that.
In most democratic countries, floor crossing is allowed. A typical example of this is Germany. This is expressed in article 38 subsection 1 of their basic law which provides, and I quote,
… shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions and responsible only to their conscience …
Professor Shrine notes that the right of parliamentarians to follow their conscience is an attempt to avoid the stranglehold that a party might have over its members. Some parties have advanced arguments on section 46(1)(d) and section 105(1)(d), which provide that members of the National Assembly and provincial legislatures shall be elected in terms of an electoral system ``that results, in general, in proportional representation’’. This then does not preclude members from exercising their own rights and choices. The Constitution regards floor crossing as being part of the outcome of proportional representation.
A learned scientist, Vernon Bogdanor, expresses the above impression in his own words and says, I quote:
It is therefore a mistake to refer to proportional representation as if it denotes a single type of electoral system.
He further argues that proportional representation is in fact a generic term connoting a number of different systems sharing only the common aim of proportionality between seats and votes …
An HON MEMBER: What are you yourself saying?
Ms N MAHLAWE: I am saying so myself. I agree.
This common aim however does not prevent the various proportional systems diverging considerably from one another.
Their political consequences therefore can be quite different, The political consequence, in our case, is the floor crossing.
Some parties have challenged the floor-crossing legislation, advancing arguments that there will be political instability and that it distorts the will of the electorate. I hope that some parties will be honest enough to tell this House that, emanating from the municipal floor crossing, there has been no instability and that there has been no distortion.
Ndiyabulela ke Sihlalo ngokulifumana eli thuba lokuba ndithethe apha. Ndiza kucela okokuba la maqela athe afumana abantu abaninzi phaya koomasipala, ngeliya xesha lomtyhi wokuwelela kwelinye iqela, anyaniseke, eze apha ngaphambili, ayitsho into yokuba azuzile wona ngokuvunyelwa kwabantu bawelele kwamanye amaqela, ngoko ke, ayasixhasa esi silungiso kuMthetho wokuwelela kwelinye iqela. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa paragraph follows.)
[I would like to thank you, Chairperson, for affording me the opportunity to speak here. I would like to ask these parties that have gained a lot of new membership from municipalities during the period of floor crossing, to come forward and be honest about the fact that floor crossing advantaged them and therefore they should say boldly that they support this Amendment Bill. [Applause.]]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairperson, these are disturbing times when, instead of providing jobs that were promised by the ruling party, we see an unprecedented high rate of unemployment and the approval of prostitution as a means of job creation. [Interjections.]
In this country, a new word has entered the English vocabulary. Prostitutes are called sex workers. We live in disturbing times when political prostitution is being introduced into this Parliament, and political prostitutes are allowed to auction themselves to the highest bidder under the false pretension that the prostitutes are serving the interests of democracy. [Interjections.]
The Fourth Amendment Bill is a gross violation of the internationally recognised doctrine of retrospectivity. The Bill undermines the electoral system which is presently based on proportionality. I have said it before and I say again: A constitution is not a doormat to use for political opportunism and expedience. A constitution is not a condom to be used to play games with political prostitutes. The constitution of a democratic country is a sacred document. It must be treated with profound respect. [Interjections.]
The Fourth Amendment Bill serves ``parochial interests’’. It encourages politics of the stomach of members of this Parliament and provincial legislatures. It facilitates their self-interests, not those of the homeless, the jobless, and victims of cholera and other diseases, as well as those of children who cannot go to school because their parents are poor.
The Bill is a diversion to avoid the issues facing this country. For instance, sections 211 and 212 of the Constitution show the way in which traditional leaders have been fooled. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr J DURAND: Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: This sounds exactly like the speech this member delivered in a previous discussion on this issue. Is it parliamentary to use the same speech twice? [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, that is not a point of order. But your time has expired. [Interjections.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: I just want to say that I have written this speech. I would know whether it is the same speech or not! Izwe lethu! [Our country!]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Mr Chairperson, our first democratic election placed the Government in power for the people by the people.
Having noted that, the crossing of the floor, as many may argue, diminishes the confidence that the public has in a member for whom they have voted via their party selection. For this reason, the person holding the seat has no authority to cross the floor, as the seat was not taken in an individual capacity.
However, having reviewed this amendment Bill, the conditions and provisions for the crossing of the floor, the MF views the process as one which does not pose such a large threat, especially for a smaller party like ours. The Bill allows for mergers and subdivisions, even for the formation of new parties. The window period is especially found to be accommodating and protects party interests. The MF supports the amending Bill. [Applause.]
The MF is in full support of the Northern Province being renamed Limpopo. This certainly gives back the province’s honour with its new name and, hopefully, new paths will open for the people of South Africa. The MF supports the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill.
With regard to the outgoing Minister of Housing, I wish to say that the MF wishes you well in your new position as the Deputy Secretary-General of the ANC. We wish you success in all your endeavours. We thank you for the wonderful service and delivery you have made possible in the Ministry of Housing since 1995. We are going to miss you. [Applause.]
Mr G B MAGWANISHE: Chairperson, on behalf of the young people of South Africa, we would like to wish Comrade Sankie Mahanyele well. You have made us very proud. We wish you well in your new endeavours.
Chairperson, Deputy President, hon members, on occasions like this one, it gives us an opportunity to reflect on ourselves as political parties representing our people in this House. It gives us an opportunity to answer this question honestly and openly: Are we honest to the people of this country? I am asking this question because some parties in this House, when this Bill was first passed last year, had this to say: This Bill is immoral; it is a betrayal of the people of South Africa and it is a political expedience on the side of the ANC. Some even referred to themselves as defenders of democracy against evil.
When two councillors in the East Rand and the Vaal crossed the floor to the UDM, the UDM called a rally in Tsakane to parade them as a victory for democracy despite the fact that they were the people who were saying that this Bill was immoral. If you are so moral, why do you benefit from the act you believe to be an immoral act? It is only a person with no self-respect or a hypocrite who would do that. Some of the people who portray themselves as defenders of democracy against the ANC are in fact defenders of their own pockets, power and prestige.
The hon leader of the United Democratic Movement formed an alliance with the discredited government of former President Botha in 1987 to overthrow the Matanzima regime so that he could get power. When he realised that the ANC was about to get power, he became closer to the ANC, because he thought he would get power. He did not last in the ANC, because he was never a democrat in the first place. [Interjections.] The United Democratic Movement’s challenge of the floor-crossing legislation was aimed at getting prestige and popularity, like their leader. Even after this Bill has been passed, despite opposition from them, if one member crosses over to them, they will have a big braai.
Our Constitution is an embodiment of our democratic values. I do not believe that a party which prides itself on being democratic would want to plunge the whole country into a constitutional crisis just because they fear they will lose premiership. We would have insisted on the premiership in the Western Cape if we wanted to - after all, we are the biggest party in the Western Cape legislature - but we did not. We did not because these changes are not about us, but about making sure that there is good governance so that we can use the state machinery to push back the frontiers of poverty and to create a nonracial society. [Applause.]
The Constitutional Court has agreed with us in principle that floor crossing is constitutional and democratic. I’m not sure about those who still oppose this Bill. What do they want to achieve? Why do they keep on chasing lizards when the crocodiles are against them? No one can stop us from creating a nonracial, democratic society. Those who think that they will stop us through court interdicts must know that koloi ena ha iduma iyatsamaya re ka se qaleng? [once that car starts idling, it pulls off. Can we not start?] [Applause.]
The Bill before us today accommodates ideological shifts that might happen in a society. Politicians are products of society. Why do we want to behave as if those ideological shifts might not affect them? Constitutions are amended throughout the world to address particular situations. After the Second World War, the United States made an amendment limiting the term of office of the president to not more than two consecutive terms, after Roosevelt served more than four terms.
Amendments to a constitution are meant to avoid stagnation in a society. As young people, we shall continue to mobilise masses of our people to work with the progressive forces to better our lives and isolate those whose only interest is to be loyal to their stomachs. The Bills before us today are no different from other constitutional Bills. On behalf of the ANC and the young people of South Africa, we support both Bills. [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Chairperson, I have some good news and some bad news for the hon Pheko. First the good news: I also used the same sermon twice. But now the bad news: not to the same congregation. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Crossing of the floor is nothing new - internationally or locally. Whole new parties have been formed by way of crossing of the floor, like the party the hon Mulder represented for a long time in Parliament. Although it was within a constituency system where the voters had voted for the person and not the party, you know and I know that you could put Humpty Dumpty on the lamp posts, the voters voted for the party and the candidate arrived here on the ticket of his party. No difference.
Vyf jaar, is ‘n lang tyd in die politiek. Om verteenwoordigers vir vyf jaar vas te bind aan ‘n bepaalde party, ongeag wat daardie party aanvang, ongeag hoeveel jakkalsdraaie hy gooi en by wie hy almal in die bed spring, is om die partystruktuur en partyleiding te verabsoluteer. Hulle is dan vir vyf jaar onaantasbaar. Hierdie wetgewing sal partye deurlopend op hul tone hou. Nou skryf hulle nie net een keer in vyf jaar eksamen nie, daar is ook twee mini-eksamens tussenin.
Opposisiepolitiek in Suid-Afrika verkeer tans in chaos. Alliansies word gevorm en weer verbreek. Ons hoor van skandale en gerugte van skandale, en van hofsake ook. Die AEB is sedert sy stigting onverpoosd besig met onderhandelinge met ‘n wye verskeidenheid groeperinge. Ons werk aan die daarstelling van ‘n nuwe politieke voertuig met integriteit, wat sal fokus op die belange van minderhede in Suid-Afrika, maar terselftertyd hom nie eksklusief wil isoleer nie, en deel wil wees van die hoofstroompolitiek. Dit moet ‘n party met ‘n bepaalde Afrikanerfokus wees, maar wat onbeskaamd sê: ``Suid-Afrika eerste.’’
Wanneer ek in die vensterperiode my setel oorneem na die Nasionale Aksie, is dit geen individuele opportunisme nie, maar die spontane resultaat van dit waarvoor oor drie jaar gewerk en onderhandel is. Ek nooi agb lede wat hierdie beginsels onderskryf: gebruik hierdie wetgewing, word deel van ‘n nuwe begin. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Five years is a long time in politics. To bind representatives to a certain party for five years, irrespective of what that party does, irrespective of how many twists and turns it makes, and with whom it jumps into bed, is to absolutise the party structure and party leadership. They are then untouchable for five years. This legislation will keep parties continuously on their toes. Now they will not write exams only once in five years, but there are also two mini-exams in between.
Opposition politics in South Africa is chaotic at the moment. Alliances are formed and broken. We hear of scandals and rumours of scandals, and of court cases too. The AEB has since its inception been tirelessly involved in negotiations with a wide variety of groupings. We are working on creating a new political vehicle with integrity, which will focus on the interests of minorities in South Africa, but which at the same time does not want to isolate itself exclusively, and which wants to be part of mainstream politics. It must be a party with a certain Afrikaner focus, but which unashamedly says: ``South Africa first.’’
When, during the window period, I take my seat across to the National Action, it will not be a case of individual opportunism, but the spontaneous result of that which has been worked for and negotiated for over a period of three years. I extend an invitation to hon members who subscribe to these principles: use this legislation, become part of a new beginning.]
You won’t be a Johnny come lately.
Die AEB steun hierdie wetgewing en sy hele koukus gaan daarvan gebruik maak. Mag ek net … [The AEB supports this legislation, and its whole caucus is going to make use of it. May I just …]
May I add my voice to those people thanking the hon Minister. Minister, we only want to say: Dankie, minister Sankie. [Thank you, Minister Sankie.] [Laughter.] Ms R TALJAARD: Chairperson, colleagues, we wish the Minister of Housing well in her new position.
The Third Constitution of Republic of South Africa Amendment Bill before the House has a siamese twin - the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill. There are unresolved questions which we are still dealing with as to the constitutionality of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill itself, despite the broadening of the intervention powers to be adopted today. The one cannot and must not be considered without reference to the other. There is a very clear umbilical cord linking these two pieces of legislation. The Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill started as system of transparency and budgetary oversight over financial management and as the fiscal watch over budgetary processes at local level. It has ended in onerous prescriptions and broad new discretionary intervention powers and an amendment of the Constitution that diminishess the oversight of the NCOP over interventions.
We need to ask ourselves, in respect of both the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill and the constitutional trumping clause before the House, whether we are supporting and strengthening the capacity of municipalities to manage their own affairs, given that they raise the bulk of their own revenue, or are we simply stifling them with prescriptions emanating from National Treasury and a potential avalanche of discretionary interventions by either provincial or national Government?
The processes for provincial intervention envisaged in the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill, the national legislation required in section 193 (3) of the Constitution, if you will, must be clear and focus on financial emergencies in order to curtail the broad new discretionary power given to MECs in the amendment before the House today. As the Business Day editorial remarked at the time: ``As things stand, provincial governments already have the power to intervene in local governments’ financial affairs.’’ In certain circumstances, the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill will broaden these powers and one trusts that, if granted, these powers will be used wisely to the benefit of ratepayers and local residents.
At the outset, we have to say that the Bill before the House is an improvement on the blatant, unbridled national intervention powers codified in its predecessor. It is also an improvement on the former version of a municipal recovery agency assuming the responsibilities of local government and forcing through a financial emergency recovery plan in cases of financial distress. It does not, however, preclude completely the prospect of direct national intervention in municipal affairs.
Given the unresolved question of provincial capacity to act in cases of distress, given their limited resources, the prospect of direct national intervention in municipal affairs remains ever present and the question as to whether this Bill is a victory for the federal cause can at best remain unanswered.
In none of the discussions on this Bill was the question of the fiscal capacity of provinces to deal with these new powers ever addressed. This begs the question: If a provincial executive lacks the capacity or the will to intervene, what will guide the national intervention power and, more importantly, bridle it when national level intervenes in the stead of the province, as provided in section 139 (3) of the Bill? [Interjections.]
I have, Johnny. I do not need your education. [Interjections.]
While the Bill before the House arguably could be construed as a strengthening of a federal model of government, we have to interrogate this question more closely. We need to contend with the spectre of national intervention in section 139 (7). We have to ask whether there are sufficient safeguards to protect local government against unnecessary and politically frivolous interventions. The first safeguard, which we will discuss when the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill comes before Parliament, is the question of the processes and procedures set out in the Bill under which a provincial intervention can be instituted. The second safeguard must be found in the constitutional amendment itself. In this regard, the argument has been made that local government can take a provincial intervention on review, as the exceptional circumstances under which the MEC acted are challengeable. These safeguards are cold comfort at this stage, given the possible scope for intervention and the national intervention power and indeed political interventions. There are four stages of interventions set out in the new amendment and I will not dwell on all of them, save to say that in terms of section 139(5), not only is the intervention power mandatory in the event of a financial crisis or where a municipality breaches its obligation to provide basic services or fails to meet its financial commitments, but the provincial executive may impose a recovery plan, binding the municipality in both its executive and legislative functions. This is untenable. As a last resort, of course, in section 139(7), national Government may intervene in the stead of the province, if the province fails to act.
This schema is problematic. There is too much discretion and the lines delineating provincial and national responses are too indistinct, but let us highlight the facts in respect of which there is agreement. We agree that local government’s financial management is in material disrepair. We agree that we need a Public Finance Management Act type system for local government to function properly and deliver services to our people. We agree that our constitutional negotiation process was an arduous one and that the powers of the provinces and local government were some of the most painstakingly contested areas of subsequent agreement. We agree that our Constitution sets up a specific governance architecture with three levels of government with distinctive powers and functions under a broad rubric of co-operative governance.
However, we disagree fundamentally on whether or not it is desirable to undo a constitutionally negotiated architecture through the introduction of a new card game like a trumping clause that emasculates many of the other constitutional provisions, aiming at protecting the local sphere of government and its integrity. We disagree fundamentally, but because there is a desire to implement a new policy dispensation in respect of local government, including a substantive redrafting of the municipal systems via the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill, the founding text of our constitutional order should make way for new policy positions on local government’s financial management and intervention powers.
In the Premier of the Western Cape vs the President of RSA, the Constitutional Court stated, in relation to section 41(1)(g) of the Constitution, that it seeks to prevent one sphere of government using its powers in ways which would undermine other spheres of government and prevent them from functioning effectively. The system of provincial intervention we create today, and which we will be fleshing out in greater detail in the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Bill, will have to answer to the requirements of section 41(1)(g). In addition, while we are creating the constitutional power in the new section 139 to bind a municipality in the exercise of its legislative functions, the desirability of such a step must always be questioned.
It is regrettable that the proposal tabled by the hon Dr Tertius Delport, which would at least have minimised the discretionary power of the MEC, did not find favour in the Portfolio Committee on Justice. The Democratic Alliance will not be supporting the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill. [Time expired.]
Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, hon Deputy President, the refusal to allow a short debate to pay tribute to the hon Minister of Housing is reflective of a small mind. [Interjections.]
Mr D H M GIBSON: [Inaudible.]
Mr L T LANDERS: Yes, well. You have had part of your brain removed, so you are in the best qualified position to say that! [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
Mr L T LANDERS: Hon Chairperson, the hon Comrade Sankie has served this House and this country well. We pay tribute to her efforts. [Interjections.] We want to say to her, on this last day of her presence in this House, that we appreciate all the efforts that she has made in improving the lot of the poorest of the poor. We want to wish her well in her new endeavours. Personally, I will miss her smiling face, her friendliness and her personality. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the hon Minister of Justice correctly spelt out the background to the measure that is before this House today, when he pointed out that it was the hon Colin Eglin who consistently brought this matter up during the negotiations for our Constitution. But, what the hon Minister of Justice did not point out was the fact that the hon Colin Eglin did this even pre-
- He did this at Codesa and he did this in the negotiating council at Kempton Park. I can say this because I know. I was there. The hon Colin Eglin, I can attest to the fact, was very skillful in his arguments for crossing-the-floor legislation, to the extent that today we are able to debate the measure that is before this House. It is a pity though that, of late, the hon Colin Eglin’s voice on floor crossing has been silenced, perhaps to the detriment of the DP’s principled position. [Interjections.]
Chairperson, I listened carefully to the hon Mncwango’s tirade during his speech from this podium. I find it particularly significant that the hon Mncwango’s new sweetheart, the Democratic Party, is supporting this measure which he describes as marking one of the darkest and lowest moments in democracy. [Interjections.] Now, the hon Mncwango went on to say that the real purpose of this legislation is the bringing about of a coup d’état in Kwazulu-Natal, and he agrees from his bench. Now, it is therefore correct to assume that the DP, which they are now associated with, is therefore in favour of the imminent coup d’état in Kwazulu-Natal by virtue of the fact that they are supporting this measure. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I am informed that the hon Taljaard, together with other members of the DP, participated in the proceedings of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and that she engaged all other parties in the committee on the position which she put forward today. Subsequent to these debates and discussions, significant amendments were made to the original text of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill. That was the last time we saw the hon Taljaard in the Portfolio Committee on Justice. Today, we discover that the DP is opposing this measure. Now, we want to call upon the real leaders of the DP to get to grips with the issues of the day and to demonstrate the leadership that is expected of them. [Interjections.]
I want to come back to the hon Albert Mncwango who has today adopted a purist and also a principled opposition to the measure before us. And I want to challenge the hon Mncwango, who is national organiser of the IFP: If he is so principled and implacably opposed to the measure before us, then I challenge him to go back to his province and say to those members of other political parties who have joined the IFP to leave, with immediate effect. [Applause.] There are councillors, and I have their names in front of me, who have joined the IFP: Memela, Ntozake, Zuma, Mlambo, Gumede, Ngcobo, Makoba, Ngculu, and the list goes on. So, if the hon Mncwango is so implacably opposed to this measure, it is then appropriate for him to get on to the phone and phone these councillors who have joined the IFP from other parties and tell them that they are no longer welcome. [Applause.] [Laughter.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Deputy Chairperson, I want to thank the hon members for what I think has been a very interesting debate. One should not be fooled by the words of Madame Taljaard when she says she wishes our departing colleague everything of the best, because we know that the real sentiment was expressed by none other than the hon Gibson on behalf of his party. [Interjections.] We know this.
We should not be fooled into thinking that the hard, ice-cold heart of the DP eventually melted when they heard that we were heaping praise upon her. We should not be fooled at all. It is the least of the felicitations we need and shall accept. [Interjections.]
Hon Mncwango, according to the official record, the IFP accepted nine defectors - it was a beneficiary in other words - and, according to the official record, the UDM accepted 11 defectors. [Interjections.] Now, in this House they have been called all sorts of names, or rather we have been called thieves, for instance. So if you received nine of these people, you indeed indulged in real political kleptomania yourself. [Laughter.] So where is moral probity when you quietly receive these?
Of course, the hon member Pheko calls them ``political prostitutes’’. [Laughter.] I never thought when I met the hon member Pheko in New York I would live long enough to see his exceptional performance, which is akin to that of a house jester, in this House. [Laughter.] I never thought I would see that one day.
But I am old now - 50 years old. I have, eventually, seen the best-ever performance. [Interjections.] Well, let me tell you something: a dunderhead is a sort of person who actually pretends to be morally up there and, at the same time, quietly receives what the hon Pheko calls ``prostitutes’’. That’s a dunderhead.
I want to say to you that we received all the people who made the choices that this legislation allowed them to make. And, in case you don’t know this, yes, as the ANC we do want the premiership of KwaZulu-Natal. [Laughter.] [Applause.] We want to save that province from Lionel Mtshali, who threatens to descend with armed Zulus and their shining things upon Maritzburg. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order, Minister. Yes, hon member, are you rising on a point of order?
Mrs S A SEATON: I am, Chairperson. Mr Lionel Mtshali is not here to defend himself and I think that is uncalled for. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member, that is not a point of order. You may proceed, Minister.
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: It is not a point of order at all. A newspaper in KwaZulu-Natal says he has called upon all self-respecting Zulus to descend upon Pietermaritzburg this coming Friday with shining things. [Interjections.]
Now, we want to defend that province from any premier who incites ordinary people to defy the law. We want to and, indeed, will work very hard. We want to assure you, at the same time, that we won’t use any method that the Constitution and the law does not allow. Those who, indeed, have always wanted to join us, once this becomes law, are free to come home. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 305: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Bakker, D M; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Bapela, O; Bekker, H J; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Biyela, B P; Blaas, A; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Cachalia, I M; Camerer, S M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Khota, F I; Cindi, N V; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Dhlamini, B W; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlali, D M; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Doman, W P; Douglas, B M; Du Toit, D C; Dudley, C; Duma, N M; Durand, J; Dyani, M M Z; Erwin, A; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Geldenhuys, B L; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Gillwald, C E; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Gous, S J; Green, L M; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hendricks, L B; Hendrickse, P A C; Herandien, C B; Hlangwana, N L; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasrils, R; Kekana, N N; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Landers, L T; Le Roux, J W; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Lekota, M G P; Lishivha, T E; Lobe, M C; Lockey, D; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabandla, B S; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Mabuza, D D; Madasa, Z L; Madikiza, G; Madlala-Routledge, N C; Maduna, P M; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Magubane, N E; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlangu- Nkabinde, G L; Mahlawe, N; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Manuel, T A; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Mars, I; Martins, B A D; Maseka, J T; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlanyane, H F; Matsepe-Casaburri, I F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, M A; Mbadi, L M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mbulawa-Hans, B G; Mbuyazi, L R; Mdladlana, M M S; Mentor, M P; Meshoe, K R J; Mfundisi, I S; Middleton, N S; Mkono, D G; Mlambo-Ngcuka, P G; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mncwango, M A; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Moeketse, K M; Mofokeng, T R; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Moloi, J; Moloto, K A; Mongwaketse, S J; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpahlwa, M B; Mpaka, H M; Mpontshane, A M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembi-Mahanyele, S D; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtsweni, N S; Mudau, N W; Mutsila, I; Mzizi, M A; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncinane, I Z; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngema, M V; Ngubane, H; Ngubeni, J M; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Niemann, J J; Njobe, M A A; Nkabinde, N C; Nobunga, B J; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana-Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, J T; Ntuli, M B; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Oliphant, M N; Oosthuizen, G C; Pahad, E G; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Phohlela, S; Pieterse, R D; Pretorius, I J; Rabie, P J; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodike, M N; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ratsoma, M M; Redcliffe, C R; Reid, L R R; Rhoda, R T; Ripinga, S S; Roopnarain, U; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E (Cassim); Schippers, J; Schneeman, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seaton, S A; Seeco, M A; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Shabangu, S; Sibande, M P; Sibiya, M S M; Sigcau, S N; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Slabbert, J H; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Southgate, R M; Swart, S N; Tarr, M A; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van Deventer, F J; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Wyk, A (Mrs); Van Wyk, A (Ms); Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, S C; Vezi, T E; Xingwana, L M T; Xulu, M; Zita, L; Zondo, R P; Zulu, N E; Zuma, J G.
NOES - 34: Andrew, K M; Bell, B G; Borman, G M; Botha, A J; Clelland- Stokes, N J; Davidson, I O; Delport, J T; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Gibson, D H M; Grobler, G A J; Jankielsohn, R; Kalyan, S V; Koornhof, N J J van R; Leon, A J; Lowe, C M; Makanda, W; Maluleke, D K; McIntosh, G B D; Moorcroft, E K; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Ntuli, R S; Opperman, S E; Schmidt, H C; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Skosana, M B; Smuts, M; Sono, B N; Swart, P S; Waters, M.
ABSTENTIONS - 1: Aucamp, C.
Question agreed to in terms of section 74(3)(a) of the Constitution.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill [B 33B- 2002] accordingly read a second time.
Question put: That the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 300: Ainslie, A R; Andrew, K M; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Aucamp, C; Bakker, D M; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Bapela, O; Bell, B G; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Blaas, A; Bloem, D V; Bogopane, H I; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Botha, A J; Botha, N G W; Cachalia, I M; Camerer, S M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Khota, F I; Cindi, N V; Clelland-Stokes, N J; Coetzee-Kasper, M P; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Davidson, I O; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Delport, J T; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlali, D M; Dlamini, B O; Doidge, G Q M; Doman, W P; Du Toit, D C; Duma, N M; Durand, J; Dyani, M M Z; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Erwin, A; Farrow, S B; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Geldenhuys, B L; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Gibson, D H M; Gillwald, C E; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Gous, S J; Greyling, C H F; Grobler, G A J; Gumede, D M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hendricks, L B; Hendrickse, P A C; Herandien, C B; Hlaneki, C J M; Hlangwana, N L; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jankielsohn, R; Jassat, E E; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kalyan, S V; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasrils, R; Kekana, N N; Kgarimetsa, J J; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, N J J van R; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Landers, L T; Le Roux, J W; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Lekota, M G P; Leon, A J; Lishivha, T E; Lobe, M C; Lockey, D; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lowe, C M; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabandla, B S; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Mabuza, D D; Madlala-Routledge, N C; Maduna, P M; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Magubane, N E; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlangu-Nkabinde, G L; Mahlawe, N; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makanda, W; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleke, D K; Malumise, M M; Manuel, T A; Mapisa- Nqakula, N N; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlanyane, H F; Matsepe- Casaburri, I F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, M A; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mbulawa-Hans, B G; McIntosh, G B D; Mdladlana, M M S; Mentor, M P; Mfundisi, I S; Mlambo-Ngcuka, P G; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Mnumzana, S K; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Moeketse, K M; Mofokeng, T R; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Molewa, B G; Moloi, J; Moloto, K A; Mongwaketse, S J; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Moorcroft, E K; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Moropa, R M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpahlwa, M B; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembi-Mahanyele, S D; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtsweni, N S; Mudau, N W; Mutsila, I; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncinane, I Z; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngubeni, J M; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Niemann, J J; Njobe, M A A; Nobunga, B J; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana-Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, J T; Ntuli, M B; Ntuli, R S; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Oliphant, M N; Oosthuizen, G C; Opperman, S E; Pahad, E G; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Phohlela, S; Pieterse, R D; Pretorius, I J; Rabie, P J; Radebe, B A; Radebe, J T; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ratsoma, M M; Redcliffe, C R; Reid, L R R; Rhoda, R T; Ripinga, S S; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E (Cassim); Schippers, J; Schmidt, H C; Schneeman, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seeco, M A; Sekgobela, P S; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; September, C C; September, R K; Seremane, W J; Shabangu, S; Sibande, M P; Sigcau, S N; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Smuts, M; Solo, B M; Sonjica, B P; Sono, B N; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Swart, P S; Tarr, M A; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van Deventer, F J; Van Jaarsveld, A Z A; Van Wyk, A (Mrs); Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, S C; Waters, M; Xingwana, L M T; Zita, L; Zondo, R P; Zuma, J G.
NOES - 41: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Bekker, H J; Biyela, B P; Dhlamini, B W; Douglas, B M; Dudley, C; Green, L M; Hlengwa, M W; Koornhof, G W; Lucas, E J; Madasa, Z L; Madikiza, G; Mars, I; Maseka, J T; Mbadi, L M; Mbuyazi, L R; Meshoe, K R J; Middleton, N S; Mkono, D G; Mncwango, M A; Mpontshane, A M; Mulder, C P; Mulder, P W A; Mzizi, M A; Ngema, M V; Ngubane, H; Nkabinde, N C; Pheko, S E M; Ramodike, M N; Roopnarain, U; Seaton, S A; Sibiya, M S M; Skosana, M B; Slabbert, J H; Southgate, R M; Swart, S N; Van Wyk, A (Ms); Vezi, T E; Xulu, M; Zulu, N E;
Question agreed to in terms of section 74(3)(a) of the Constitution.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill [B 69B- 2002] accordingly read a second time.
FILLING OF VACANCY ON ICASA COUNCIL
(Consideration of Report of Portfolio Committee on Communications)
Question that Mr G Petrick be recommended for appointment as councillor to Icasa agreed to.
The House adjourned at 17:32. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
WEDNESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2003
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
Translations of Bills submitted:
(1) The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
Wetsontwerp op die Voorkoming van Korrupsie [W 19 - 2002]
(National Assembly - sec 75)
This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Prevention
of Corruption Bill [B 19 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75).
THURSDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2003
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill [B 33 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 74), dated 19 February 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Bill [B 33 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 74), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 74 Bill, endorses the classification of the Bill and reports the Bill with amendments [B 33A - 2002].
The Committee wishes to report further, as follows:-
Section 139(3) of the Constitution presently grants the national executive a discretion to table national legislation regulating the process of intervention by a provincial executive in local government in terms of section 139. The Committee, during its initial deliberations on the Bill, considered the possibility of amending section 139(3) so as to make the enactment of such national legislation compulsory. Having noted that the national legislation contemplated in section 139(3) has already been introduced in Parliament and that it is presently being considered by the Portfolio Committee on Finance, the Committee deemed it appropriate not to amend section 139(3) as originally considered.
-
Section 100(3) of the Constitution contains provisions similar to that of section 139(3) in that it grants the national executive a discretion to table national legislation regulating the process of intervention by the national executive in provincial administration. However, the Committee was informed that no legislation contemplated in section 100(3) has been drafted or is in the process of being drafted.
-
The Committee has, for purposes of consistency with section 139(3), decided not to amend section 100(3) so as to make the enactment of the national legislation contemplated in that section compulsory. However, the Committee would like to recommend that the Minister of Finance be requested to submit a report to the National Assembly, within three months of the adoption of this Report by the National Assembly -
(a) indicating all steps he has taken or will be taking in order to table the national legislation contemplated in section 100(3); or
(b) if he does not envisage tabling such legislation, providing motivation for this decision.
-
Report to be considered.
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill [B 69 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 74), dated 19 February 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the subject of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill [B 69 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 74), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 74 Bill, endorses the classification of the Bill and reports the Bill with amendments [B 69A - 2002].
FRIDAY, 21 FEBRUARY 2003 ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
(1) Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism:
(a) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 19 February 2003 in terms
of Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bills as section 75
Bills:
(i) National Ports Authority Bill [B 5 - 2003] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
(ii) Public Protector Amendment Bill [B 6 - 2003] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
National Assembly:
- The Speaker: Referrals to committees of tabled papers:
(1) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Foreign Affairs, the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security,
the Portfolio Committee on Defence and the Portfolio Committee on
Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration. The
Portfolio Committee on Foreign Affairs must confer with the above-
mentioned committees and the Portfolio Committee on Foreign
Affairs to report:
(a) Protocol relating to the Establishment of the Peace and
Security Council of the African Union, tabled in terms of
section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Protocol.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
(a) Resolutions of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for
2002 and replies thereto obtained by the National Treasury -
Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth reports, 2002.
(b) Government Notice No 104 published in Government Gazette No
24257 dated 14 January 2003: Designation of an institution of
which the activities do not fall within the meaning of "The
Business of a Bank" ("Ithala Development Finance Corporation
Limited" formerly known as "KwaZulu Finance & Investment
Corporation Limited"), made in terms of the Banks Act, 1990 (Act
No 94 of 1990).
(c) Government Notice No 33 published in Government Gazette No 24264
dated 24 January 2003: Proposed amendment of Pension Fund
Regulations, made in terms of the Pension Funds Act, 1956 (Act No
24 of 1956).
National Assembly:
Papers:
- The Speaker:
Report of the Public Service Commission on the State of the Public
Service for November 2002 [RP 6 - 2003].
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government on the Local Government: Municipal Structures Second Amendment Bill [B 68 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 20 February 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government, having considered the subject of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Second Amendment Bill [B 68 - 2002] (National Assembly
-
sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 68A - 2002].
TUESDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2003
-
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- The Speaker and the Chairperson:
Translations of Bills submitted:
(1) The Minister for Safety and Security:
Wetsontwerp op Springstof [W 43 - 2002] (National Assembly -
sec 75)
This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Explosives
Bill [B 43 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75).
National Assembly:
- The Speaker:
Membership of Assembly:
The vacancy which occurred owing to Dr N O Mndende vacating her seat
with effect from 15 February 2003, has been filled with effect from 17
February 2003 by the nomination of Mr G T Madikiza.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Public Enterprises:
Report and Financial Statements of the South African Forestry Company
Limited (SAFCOL) for the year ended 30 June 2002.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Finance on the Insurance Amendment Bill [B 52 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 7 February 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Insurance Amendment Bill [B 52 - 2002] (National Assembly - sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 52A - 2002].