National Assembly - 16 September 2003
TUESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2003 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:03.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
CONGRATULATIONS TO HESTRIE CLOETE AND RETIEF GOOSEN
(Draft Resolution)
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House congratulates -
(1) Hestrie Cloete on being named the Best Female Athlete of 2003 by the International Association of Athletic Federations, following her gold medal win at the World Athletics Championships where she broke the women’s high jump world record during her dream season that saw her winning 21 of the 25 events for which she entered; and
(2) Retief Goosen on winning the Lancôme Trophy played in Versailles, France, as his first major tournament win this year.
Agreed to.
COMPLETION OF TASK BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GENERAL INTELLIGENCE LAWS
AMENDMENT BILL
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move the draft resolution printed in his name on the Order Paper, as follows: That, with reference to the resolution adopted by the House on 2 September 2003, the Ad Hoc Committee on General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill is to complete its task by no later than 25 September 2003.
Agreed to.
WTO MEETING IN CANCUN
(Member's Statement)
Mr C T FROLICK (ANC): Madam Speaker, we note the intransigence of the developed countries during the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation held in Cancun in Mexico regarding the more equitable system of international trade and investment; and note the huge demonstrations mounted by farmers, peasants and activists from Mexico and other developing countries supported by large numbers of concerned citizens from the developed countries themselves. We recommend and commend the important unity displayed by the G20+ countries and the critical role played by developing countries, including Argentina, Brazil and South Africa in refusing to be bullied by the developed countries.
We condemn in the strongest terms the attitude of the governments of the developed countries, whose greed for profits has caused the collapse of the WTO ministerial meeting. We congratulate our Government and the Minister of Trade and Industry for the sterling efforts at both Doha and Cancun in so ably championing the cause of the developing countries.
NEW NP POSTERS IN BLOEMFONTEIN
(Member's Statement)
Dr J T DELPORT (DA): Mevrou die Speaker, die Hooggeregshof het beslis dat die Nuwe NP in die Bloemfonteinse tussenverkiesing hul onbehoorlike plakkate moet verwyder. Wat sê hierdie plakkate? In dramatiese wit en swart staan daar: ``DA teen doodstraf; DA vir aborsie’’.
Dit is alles leuens. In boeretaal, die Nuwe NP lieg en bedrieg die publiek. [Tussenwerpsels.] En wat het dit in elk geval met munisipale sake uit te waai? Hulle weet mos dat die DA doodstraf en aborsie as hoogs persoonlike en sensitiewe sake beskou en mense se sieninge hieroor respekteer. Dit is die beleid: elkeen moet voor sy eie gewete besluit. [Tussenwerpsels.] Jy het nie ‘n gewete nie.
Daarom sal ons ook berus by die uitslag van ‘n referendum. Hoofsweep Douglas Gibson en ek het by herhaling vir die doodstraf gevra.
Wat die Nuwe NP sê is onwaar en dít nogal nadat die NP-regering die doodstraf in 1989 gestop het en toegelaat het dat die Grondwet so geformuleer word dat die doodstraf as ongrondwetlik verklaar word. Die plakkate is ‘n vergeefse poging om die politieke doodstraf wat die kiesers Woensdag gaan gee, te probeer ontkom. Daarvoor offer die Nuwe NP sy politieke eerbaarheid op. Sies, Marthinus! Sies, Boy! Sies, Inus! (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.) [Dr J T DELPORT (DA): Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court has ruled that the New NP must remove their unseemly posters in the Bloemfontein by-election. What do these posters state? In dramatic black and white they state: ``DA against death penalty; DA for abortion’’.
It’s all lies. In plain language, the New NP is lying and misleading the public. [Interjections.] And what does this have to do with municipal matters anyway? Of course they know that the DA regards the death penalty and abortion as highly personal and sensitive issues and respects people’s views in this regard. This is the policy: Each must decide according to his own conscience. [Interjections.] You don’t have a conscience. That is why we would also abide by the outcome of a referendum. Chief Whip Douglas Gibson and I have repeatedly asked for the death penalty.
What the New NP is saying is untrue, and this after the NP government even ended the death penalty in 1989, allowing the Constitution to be formulated in such a way that the death penalty was declared as unconstitutional. Those posters are a vain attempt at avoiding the political death sentence which the voters will be giving on Wednesday. That is what the New NP has sacrificed its political honour for. Sis, Marthinus! Sis, Boy! Sis, Inus!]
ILLEGAL TRADE IN SECOND-HAND VEHICLES
(Member's Statement)
Prince N E ZULU (IFP): Madam Speaker, thousands of imported second-hand vehicles, many of which come through the Durban harbour legally as vehicles in transit to neighbouring countries, are being smuggled onto the South African market. Many of these vehicles never reach their intended destinations but are given false chassis and engine numbers, and offered for sale through local second-hand dealers.
It is illegal to import second-hand vehicles for resale in South Africa. Some of these illegal vehicles are bought by people who have no idea of a particular vehicle’s origin or that the vehicle could be confiscated without compensation by the customs authority.
According to certain authorities the dramatic increase in the number of imported second-hand vehicles destined for neighbouring countries has led to an increase in the number of used cars coming in through the Durban harbour. This has created opportunities for criminal activity, as there are also stolen vehicles coming in with the second-hand imported vehicles. We urge motorists to be aware when buying second-hand vehicles. We also urge the relevant authorities to find ways of stopping this criminal activity from happening.
PEACE ON CONTINENT
(Member's Statement)
Mr D V BLOEM (ANC): Madam Speaker, yesterday President Thabo Mbeki and Deputy President Jacob Zuma attended the regional Heads of State Summit on Burundi in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. As facilitator of the peace process, Deputy President Jacob Zuma presented a report on developments in the peace process. Mindful of the huge difficulties and the patience required for these efforts to succeed, the ANC commends the commitment of our Government to the achievement of peace on the continent. We recognise the centrality of peace in our efforts to achieve socioeconomic developments and the reconstruction of the continent. Further, we remain cognisant of the fact that our objective of poverty eradication hinges directly on whether we succeed in our peace efforts and the entrenchment of democratic processes. We wish our President, the Deputy President and all the leaders involved success in this profoundly humane and noble endeavour. I thank you. [Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Before asking for the next statement, hon member Delport, I wish to raise with you your statement. It was in order inasmuch as whatever you said applied to the New NP; in other words a political party. That is in order. However, regarding your concluding remarks where you then identified two individuals, ``Shame on you, Boy. Shame on you, Marthinus.’’ I assume one was a reference to somebody who is not a member of this House. The other is a reference to a member of this House. I would ask you to withdraw that, please. [Interjections.] Just that part of it.
Dr J T DELPORT: Could I just get clarity, Madam Speaker. Which part am I to withdraw? [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, at the end of your statement, you concluded by saying, ``Shame on you, Boy. Shame on you, Marthinus.’’ And it is that part, inasmuch as it refers to a member of this House, that I want you to withdraw.
Dr J T DELPORT: I must withdraw the words Sies, Boy''. I will withdraw
the wordsSies, Boy.’’
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon member.
RULING OF THE BROADCASTING COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
(Member's Statement)
Mr J DURAND (New NP): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Die Uitsaaiklagtes Kommissie van Suid-Afrika het vandag beslis dat die verwysing na sommige Afrikaanse rugbyspelers in die Springbokspan as ``thick Dutchmen’’ haatspraak is en ‘n Kaapse radiostasie ‘n boete van R10 000 opgelê het. Die Nuwe NP het dié klagte ingedien. Die Nuwe NP verwelkom hierdie beslissing omdat dit nie aanvaarbaar is in die nuwe Suid-Afrika om sekere gemeenskappe name te noem en aan te val nie. Hoewel die Nuwe NP die vryheid van spraak as hoeksteen van die demokrasie ondersteun, kan ons nié toelaat dat enige gemeenskap in ‘n multikulturele samelewing gestereotipeer word nie. Omdat die Nuwe NP nasiebou en versoening as ‘n fokuspunt van sy beleid stel, kan ons nie toelaat dat hierdie verdelende opmerkings onbeantwoord gelaat word nie. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa today ruled that the reference to some Afrikaans rugby players in the Springbok team as ``thick Dutchmen’’ was an example of hate speech and a Cape radio station was fined R10 000. The New NP lodged this complaint. The New NP welcomes the decision since it is not acceptable in the new South Africa to call certain communities names and to attack them. Although the New NP supports freedom of speech as the cornerstone of democracy, we cannot allow any community in a multicultural society to be stereotyped. Since the New NP regards nation-building and reconciliation as a focal point of its policy, we cannot allow these divisive comments to go unanswered. I thank you.]
THE AGE OF CONSENT FOR SEXUAL EXPERIMENTATION
(Member's Statement)
Ms C DUDLEY (ACDP): There is evidence of a worldwide effort to lower the age when a child can legally give consent for intercourse with an adult. This desire to gain access to children has resulted in many intense legislative struggles in Western nations and South Africa is no exception. The ACDP has been the only party to sound the alarm in South Africa; alerting the public to proposed legislation to reduce the age of sexual consent and permit sexual experimentation.
In terms of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Amendment Bill children between the ages of 12 and 16 years are permitted to engage in sexual experimentation of a nonpenetrative nature with partners also below the age of 16. The age of consent for homosexual relations is to be lowered from 19 to 16 years for both genders. Teenage years are fraught with emotional conflict as the transition from child to adult is made and our children need to be protected and guided rather than encouraged to participate in homosexual and heterosexual sexual experimentation with possible life- threatening consequences. Whilst not oblivious to the fact that many children are sexually active, it is unacceptable that 12- to 16-year-olds, most of whom will not have reached puberty, should be vulnerable to exploitation under the guise of sexual experimentation.
Although many homosexual activists publicly deny that they want access to boys, homosexual groups around the world are working aggressively to lower the age of consent. The ACDP believes that sexual relations should be celebrated within the institution of marriage. We are concerned that media and loveLife campaigns in schools encourage sexual experimentation and with such legislation in place … [Time expired.] Thank you.
COSATU CONGRESS
(Member's Statement)
Mr N M NENE (ANC): Thank you, Madam Speaker. From 15 to 18 September 2003, Cosatu holds its eighth national congress at Gallaghar Estate, Midrand in Johannesburg. We take this opportunity to salute Cosatu for its long- standing efforts at organising and uniting the working people of our country. We salute Cosatu for the critical role it has played and continues to play within our revolutionary alliance. The people of South Africa value the immense contributions that Cosatu continues to make in the transformation of our country. Its commitment to voting for the ANC in the 2004 elections serves as a critical contribution in the struggle for social justice. The ANC wishes the brave and heroic workers of our country and their federation, Cosatu, a successful eighth congress. [Applause.]
WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION
(Member's Statement)
Mr P H K DITSHETELO (UCDP): The poor countries were looking to the World Trade Organisation for fair treatment in terms of trade. Unfortunately it would seem that this expectation amounted to nothing but disappointment. It is unfortunate that things are not going according to plan and not much is being achieved at this gathering. This is a bitter lesson for the developing countries, which is not to rely so much on the developed countries.
The issues of agriculture are the core of the problem. It is said that the rich countries have sought to employ tactics that make it difficult to reach a solution on key issues that impact directly on the development of weaker nations. As we know, the African countries are mainly driven by agriculture. The insistence by the rich countries that the issue of subsidies for these farmers cannot be tackled at this forum in the form of scrapping subsidies for developed countries, contributes to inequality and biased trade relations between rich and poor nations. The situation calls for the World Trade Organisation members to move speedily in achieving common ground on these issues. The Minister of Trade and Industry must ensure … [Time expired.]
COSATU
(Member's Statement)
Mr C AUCAMP (NA): Hon Speaker, according to a report on the website of News
24, and I quote, ... ululating, cheering members of Cosatu chanted
slogans ... '' at their annual congress supporting Deputy President Jacob
Zuma. Delegates sang a song denouncing National Prosecuting Authority head
Bulelani Ngcuka.Ngcuka uvulela impi, ubiza umlo!’’ [“Ngcuka, you are
calling for war.’’] sang the group outside the entrance of the congress
venue.
Die NA beskou hierdie optrede van Cosatu as onverantwoordelik, opruiend en ‘n populistiese bedreiging van die regtelike gesag en wet en orde in Suid- Afrika. Dit blyk duidelik dat hierdie Cosatu-lede geen respek het vir die mees basiese beginsel van wet en orde in ‘n demokratiese staatsgestel nie. Die NA stel die volgende dringende vrae aan die leierskap van die ANC, en ons is bly sy voorsitter is hier vandag. Is die ANC bereid om hom te distansieer van die strydkrete deur sy een groot bondgenoot? Sal die ANC sy beoogde samewerking in die komende verkiesing met Cosatu as alliansievennoot in heroorweging neem in die lig van hierdie optrede van Cosatu-lede indien hulle nie deur die leierskap van Cosatu tot orde geroep is nie? Sal die staat in geval van genoegsame getuienis vervolging instel teen hierdie flagrante viktimisasie van die vervolgingsgesag van Suid- Afrika?
Verder doen die NA ‘n beroep op Adjunkpresident Zuma om in die lig van die dreigende onstabiliteit rondom sy posisie die eerbare weg te volg en uit sy pos te bedank. Ek dank u. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The NA regards this action of Cosatu as irresponsible, inflammatory and a populist threat to the judiciary and law and order in South Africa. It is clear that these Cosatu members have no respect for the most basic principle of law and order in a democratic state. The NA wants to ask the leadership of the ANC the following important questions; and we are glad that its chairman is here today. Is the ANC prepared to distance itself from the battle-cries by its one big ally? Will the ANC, in the light of this action by Cosatu members, rethink its intended co-operation with Cosatu as its alliance partner in the coming elections if they are not called to order by the leadership of Cosatu? Will the state institute legal proceedings in the case of sufficient evidence against this flagrant victimisation of the prosecuting authority of South Africa? Furthermore, the NA appeals to Deputy President Zuma, in the light of the threatening instability surrounding his position, to do the honourable thing and resign from his position. I thank you. [Interjections.]]
TOURISM
(Member's Statement)
Ms C M P RAMOTSAMAI (ANC): Madam Speaker, South Africa’s tourism has increased by more than 500% in the past 10 years. This remarkable development was confirmed by Conservation International at the 5th World Parks Congress in Durban. As we come closer to the conclusion of our first decade of freedom, the beautiful fruits of our freedom and our democracy are becoming more of a shared global heritage. The world is discovering continually the warmth of our people, the beauty of our land and our preparedness to create a common home characterised by the spirit of ubuntu. Our significant success as a country in improving tourism will contribute greatly to our efforts aimed at job creation and pushing back the frontiers of poverty. Let us as South Africans celebrate the achievements we have made in our first decade of freedom.
Let us conserve our ecosystems, landscapes and wildlife, and our positive historical and cultural features. Let us make ours a better country, a better Africa and a better world. I thank you. [Applause.]
INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS REGARDING MR BULELANI NGCUKA
(Member's Statement)
Adv H C SCHMIDT (DA): Mevrou die Speaker, lede van die publiek staan verbaas en stomgeslaan oor die feit dat die ANC glo ondersoek instel na Bulelani Ngcuka se beweerde status as ‘n spioen van die vorige regering, maar stel nie ondersoek in ten opsigte van beweerde korrupsie aan die kant van die Adjunkpresident nie. Die Huis moet kennis neem van die feit dat die kiesers nie onnosel is nie. Hulle besef te goed dat politieke stof opgeskop word om die aandag van die beweerde korrupsie af te lei.
Of meneer Ngcuka wel ‘n spioen was in die ou dae is natuurlik interessant. Dit het egter niks te doen met die feite om die Adjunkpresident nie. Wat die publiek wil weet is hoekom meneer Zuma absoluut stilbly in plaas daarvan om sy kant van die storie te vertel. Hy het mos immers nie ‘n verhoor nodig nie. Hy kan sy kant van die storie in die Parlement of selfs by ‘n mediakonferensie stel. Die hele land sal aan sy lippe hang. Ek dank u. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Adv H C SCHMIDT (DA): Madam Speaker, members of the public are surprised and dumbfounded by the fact that the ANC will apparently investigate Bulelani Ngcuka’s alleged status as a spy for the former government, but will not investigate the alleged corruption on the part of the Deputy President. The House should take note of the fact that the voters are not stupid. They realise only too well that political dust is being kicked up in order to distract the attention away from the alleged corruption.
Whether Mr Ngcuka was in fact a spy in the old days is of course interesting. However, that has nothing to do with the facts relating to the Deputy President. What the public would like to know is why Mr Zuma is keeping absolutely quiet instead of telling his side of the story. He most surely does not need a trial? He can state his side of the story to Parliament or even at a media conference. The whole country would hang on his lips. I thank you. [Interjections.]]
PROPOSED TOLL ROAD COULD RESULT IN LOSS OF NEW PLANT SPECIES
(Member's Statement)
Mrs L R MBUYAZI (IFP): Madam Speaker, a new plant species falling under a species known for its pharmaceutical properties, has been discovered by botanists working on the corridor of the proposed Wild Coast N2 toll road. This area combines ancient tropical shrubs and trees with species derived from the Cape vegetation, and it is reported that 1 800 plant species are crammed into this area.
Prof Trevor Edwards of the School of Botany and Zoology at the University of Natal, who is studying this species, believes that it would be reckless to lose this plant to the proposed toll road before it is actually known how pharmaceutically useful this plant could be.
It is therefore our wish that all stakeholders who are affected by the toll road project work together and protect this plant to exhaust the due medical research process for the common good of all of us. Thank you.
PROTECTION OF OZONE LAYER
(Member's Statement)
Ms M M MAUNYE (ANC): Madam Speaker, 16 September has been proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly as the International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer.
We observe this day to commemorate the signing in 1987 of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The depletion of the ozone layer endangers all life on earth. It is therefore important that industries ultimately cease all production and consumption of ozone- depleting substances as outlined under the Montreal Protocol.
The ANC calls on all of humanity to plan focused efforts aimed at raising public, industry and government awareness of issues on ozone depletion. As this year’s theme says: Let us save our sky. There is a whole lot more to do for our children. I thank you, Madam Speaker.
DA-IFP ALLIANCE
(Member's Statement)
Dr B L GELDENHUYS (New NP): Speaker, I rise to comment on what was announced in the media as the looming marriage between the IFP and the DA. I am referring of course to a possible formal co-operation agreement between these two parties. Now, if parties want to form a united front against the ANC, it is their democratic right to do so. [Interjections.] But what I find very hard to understand is how a party like the IFP can simultaneously sit comfortably in the Government of the ANC rulers and in the caucus of the official opposition. [Applause.] I find this mind- boggling. You can’t have your political cake and eat it. [Interjections.] Somewhere along the line the IFP will have to make an important choice.
En skielik word hierdie samewerkingsooreenkoms voorgehou as ‘n alternatief vir die ANC-regering, maar dit is nie wat die jongste meningspeilings sê nie; A C Nielsen bevind dat as daar môre ‘n verkiesing gehou word, kry die DA 6,7% steun en die IVP 2,4%. En as mens nog die 1% by tel van die VF, wat hulle ook by die alliansie wil aansluit, is dit 9,1%. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[And suddenly this co-operation agreement is being proffered as an alternative to the ANC Government, but that is not what the latest opinion polls say; A C Nielson has found that if an election were to be held tomorrow, the DA would receive 6,7% support and the IFP 2,4%. And if one were to add the 1% of the FF, which also wants to join the alliance, it would be 9,1%.]
It is no alternative for the ANC at all. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Order, hon members! There is time for ministerial responses, but I don’t see any Minister whose portfolios were referred to.
The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Madam Speaker, if I may, I’m available to speak on behalf of all of my colleagues who aren’t here, even for myself. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: No. You’re not called upon to do so.
Hon Minister Asmal. There was no question referring to education.
SEX EDUCATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN SCHOOLS
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: There was, Madam Speaker. With great respect, the hon Dudley referred to sex education of young people in schools, and that is very central to our national curriculum strategy. With your permission, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: You may deal with that issue.
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Thank you. I have no doubt that the hon Dudley is a very decent person. I have no doubt that she is a sincere person, but she lacks compassion. She lacks understanding in everything she says and does about young people.
The idea of amending the age of marriage followed a law reform commission report. That young people develop earlier now than in her time and in my time, that there are enormous pressures on them and an enormous amount of precocious sexual activity are all ideas that seem to pass her by altogether. It is vital therefore for this House to recognise that if we want to reach out to young people, we should recognise their needs and their development, how they develop and when. I ask the hon Dudley therefore not to be obsessed by a particular approach, which will not help young people grow and develop.
It is vital that we understand that young people understood about HIV/Aids, according to the Mandela Report, because of the school system; and that the incidence of HIV/Aids in young people is tapering off because of the successes of the school system.
I claim nothing from loveLife; I am not involved in that. They have shaken up the understanding of young people. As for yourselves, I look forward to the support of the hon Dudley when we involve our schools in sexology education, which is the only way of dealing with violence against women and, of course, precocious sexual activity. Thank you very much.
MEMBER'S STATEMENT ON POSSIBLE DA-IFP CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker and hon members, I was rather astounded by the statement that was made by Dr Geldenhuys because, in the first place, when President Mandela invited us to participate in the Government of National Unity in 1994, it was the New NP …
The SPEAKER: Hon Minister, I must ask …
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: … they chickened out of that.
The SPEAKER: Hon Minister, please! This time is only for responses in the context of one’s portfolio. I very much …
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: I thought I had the right to correct some twaddle from a member of Parliament. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Minister, I am sure you will be able to find an opportunity to speak in the many debates today, and deal with that. [Interjections.] I do regret it, but I am afraid I have to apply the same thing that I applied to Mr Lekota, who was also wanting to reply at a political level.
NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The SPEAKER: I now welcome and call the hon Minister of Transport. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Madam Speaker, hon members, the Bill before this House has its origin in the White Paper on National Commercial Ports Policy. It was adopted by Cabinet in March 2002, more than a year ago.
Commercial ports play a crucial role in South Africa’s transport, logistics and socioeconomic development. It is interesting to note that 90% of world trade is seaborne and approximately 98% of South Africa’s exports are conveyed by sea. These figures illustrate the point that the life of our economy depends a great deal on ports. Ports play a vital role in all countries. Many people do not realise just how vital this role is for the health of the economy. A country’s ports are at the same time a barometer of its integration into the world or global marketplace and a critical support system for its international trade.
The aim of the White Paper on National Commercial Ports Policy, therefore, was to ensure affordable, internationally competitive, efficient and safe port services, based on the application of commercial rules in a transparent and competitive environment applied consistently across the transport system. The White Paper identified that an efficient port required not only adequate infrastructure, superstructure and equipment, but also good communications, information, technology systems and a dedicated and skilled management team with a motivated and trained workforce.
The White Paper proposed that, in order to ensure that our ports continue to contribute to our international competitiveness, the separation of the port authority and port operation components will give additional impetus to ongoing efforts to upgrade facilities and equipment. The White Paper proposed the creation of a sector regulator for ports as well. The port reform process, therefore, is aimed at improving the performance of the port system, raising productivity, promoting black economic empowerment and mobilising private sector investment in the South African port system.
When Cabinet adopted the White Paper on National Commercial Ports Policy, this Parliament was set a critical assignment. It is the assignment of providing a framework of law that can make the policy pronouncements into reality for our country. This Bill before the House, therefore, is that framework of law.
It heralds a new dawn for port regulation management operations. It places us in a position to move speedily with implementation of the port reform process. The objects of the Bill in a nutshell are to promote transparency, improve efficiency and performance in the management and operation of ports by establishing appropriate institutional arrangements to support the governance of ports and create an environment to facilitate the development of technology information systems and managerial expertise through private sector involvement and participation, and generally to promote the development of an integrated, regional production and distribution system in support of Government’s policy.
The premise of the Bill is port efficiency, regulation and empowerment. This means that by establishing and redefining the functions of the national ports authority, we are confirming that, firstly, the authority has the function to own, manage, control and administer ports to ensure their efficient and economic functioning. Although the authority will not be involved in operations, the authority has the overall responsibility as an operator of last resort to do everything reasonably necessary for the effective and economic management planning operation of ports. This provision is in line with the best international practice to empower the authority to exercise.
The Bill before the House has been carefully worked out to ensure that the transition from the authority in its present form, as a division of Transnet, is carefully managed, whilst at the same time not unnecessarily delaying its ultimate exit from the Transnet stable. It is important to indicate that the Bill has been drafted so that throughout all these stages of the development of the authority, it enjoys the status of the authority and is fully empowered to perform the function of the authority as if it were the authority.
It is important for me to state that, throughout the entire process of development of the authority, workers employed by the authority are and will be guaranteed their positions. The Bill before you entrusts the Minister of Public Enterprises with the function to appoint the members of the board of authority and to hold shares of the authority on behalf of Government. The board is fully empowered to undertake various functions and, amongst other authorisations, the authority will approve a strategic and business plan, approve port reform measures and, most importantly, ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises owned by historically disadvantaged groups have an equitable opportunity to participate in the operations of facilities in the ports environments.
The White Paper on National Commercial Ports Policy has identified the need for a port regulator with the main aim to regulate the authority, firstly, to ensure impartiality and equity in the access to port services; secondly, to rule on any complaint by port users regarding monopoly pricing on the part of the authority; and, thirdly, to monitor the business relationship between the authority and Transnet. And so the Bill deals with all these various matters adequately, in my submission. I would like to thank the portfolio committee, its chairperson, Jeremy Cronin and members of all parties who participated in the portfolio committee for the very constructive discussions that took place and were reported to me. Thank you for that, I think a very good product has emerged as a result of that process of interaction in the portfolio committee.
The Bill confirms then that ports are important to our country’s economic growth and I just want to summarise the specific objectives of the Bill as being, firstly, to provide for the establishment of the national ports authority to own, manage and control ports on behalf of the state; secondly, to provide for the transfer of ports, land and other rights and obligations from Transnet to the authority; thirdly, to provide for the establishment of the port regulators; fourthly, to ensure equity in the access to ports facilities in a nondiscriminatory manner; fifthly, to authorise the authority to enter into various forms of contracts, including concessions; sixthly, to provide for the licensing of ports services and facilities; seventhly, to authorise the charging of fees; and eighthly, to amend other laws that have a bearing on activities of ports.
Thank you to all those who participated and made a contribution. I would like to indicate that Government has been having discussions with the labour sector with regard to certain of the concerns of labour. Those discussions have not been concluded, they are taking place through the national framework agreement process and hopefully in due course, shortly after today, an agreement will be reached. I want to indicate that we, as Government, will go out of our way to address worker concerns. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr J P CRONIN: Madam Speaker, South Africa has seven major commercial ports: Richards Bay, Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, Mossel Bay, Cape Town, Saldanha and, obviously, Coega Port will also soon come on stream.
As we’ve begun to turn our economy around in South Africa, we’ve also noticed then that there are some bottlenecks, including within the ports system. It’s for this reason that Cabinet, and we very much welcome it as the portfolio committee, has announced recently a major investment in the ports system in terms of infrastructure. However, obviously, we also need to align the institutional arrangements as well to support this major investment in this critical strategic area of our economy. That’s really what this Bill, the National Ports Authority Bill, is about.
At the moment, the major public institution controlling the port system is Transnet, and it does it through two divisions: the SAPO, which is the SA Port Operations division, which handles cargo and so forth; and the National Ports Authority. Now, when you are dealing with handling or transporting freight, which is what we call logistics, there are several challenges that inevitably crop up.
One challenge is that it’s very important to handle the individual components of the transport system effectively and efficiently. You need to look at rail; you need to look at your airports; you need to look at your customs handling and clearance; you need to look at the road system and, obviously, also at sea ports. So each one of those things needs to be looked at carefully, but, at the same time, it’s very important not to lose sight of the fact that you are dealing with a system that needs to be integrated and is sometimes not effectively integrated.
In some African ports - I’m happy to say not here in South Africa, but in some African ports - you have efficient ships arriving, efficient cranes operating and then it takes 180 days, on average, to move the container from the port. That doesn’t really help if the system is not working effectively.
Another challenge that comes up with logistic systems like this, particularly if you are dealing with ports in South Africa, is that we have a very open economy, we depend on exports and imports. Something like 98%, I think, of our exports and imports travel through these sea ports, but our industrial heartland is deep in the interior of the country.
Therefore, when you talk about sea ports, you are talking about a very important, strategic, national public asset. We can’t just sell it off to Enron or some private company for profit. This is a national asset which we need to safeguard. It’s very critical to economic growth and development in our country. At the same time, obviously, you are dealing with very important private sector players - shipping lines, freight handlers and many small businesses as well. Therefore, to achieve integration between these is another major challenge.
Now, in trying to address this challenge in our own port system, there was a White Paper, which the Minister referred to, and the first draft Bill, which arrived at the committee stage at the beginning of this year. It essentially identified, as the key institutional challenge, the development of a powerful, effective and stand-alone national port authority outside of Transnet.
When the Bill arrived, we had an explosion in our very first hearings because Transnet, quite rightly, expressed very, very strong concerns. They pointed out that over 50% of their existing revenues are derived, actually, at present, from the National Ports Authority, and taking the National Ports Authority out of Transnet would have very grave consequences.
Now, generally, good sense prevailed. There was one private sector company in one of our hearings which said that if Transnet can’t survive without the National Ports Authority, then we should let it go down. But that’s a very shortsighted perspective from anyone’s corner. If the rail system in South Africa collapses, it doesn’t matter that your port system is working well, because the whole system starts not to work.
Confronted with these challenges we sent the original draft back with the co-operation of the drafters from the Department of Transport. We sent it back and said that we really need to have a new draft. By the middle of this year we had a second draft Bill before us, which we think has solved the problem that Transnet presented us with. We now have a three-stage process.
The National Ports Authority, at present, is a wholly owned division of Transnet. In a second moment it will become a Pty Limited corporation, but owned by Transnet, within Transnet still. In the third phase it will become a stand-alone publicly owned corporation under the Minister for Public Enterprises. So that was the first problem, and we think we have solved it.
The second problem has presented itself around Maydon Wharf. I think the Minister of Home Affairs knows Maydon Wharf very well. It’s an old port of Durban harbour, and Durban port is the most important port in South Africa. In the Maydon Wharf area, because it’s an old development, there are many problems. There are people there with leases that go back 70 years and more. In some of the leases, there are strange references to things like the Group Areas Act and so on, which is completely unacceptable.
The rentals are not very much market-related, but perhaps the key problem is that there are many people sitting on Maydon Wharf currently, doing business which is completely unrelated to ports and to the business of ports. We really need, therefore, to transform that area in order to develop the port of Durban. So what we have done in the Bill is this: Originally, in the Bill, there was a Maydon Wharf chapter which said that the National Ports Authority would have the power, when public interest declared so, to renegotiate the leases or to cancel them where appropriate.
Now we accepted the idea behind it, but there were concerns raised from the committee, correctly so, that a section of a Bill which referred specifically to Maydon Wharf might meet with Constitutional challenges, because it would be too restrictive. So what we’ve done is that we’ve preserved the intention but broadened the reference - so it’s no longer just at Maydon Wharf, although that is the main target of the concern - to a general reference empowering the National Ports Authority, where public interest prevails, to cancel or renegotiate leases that are in the port’s environment. Of course, in broadening this, it raised concerns from shipping lines and the fishing industry who thought that they were all being targeted by these new measures.
The third thing that we’ve done is that, in the second draft of the Bill, we’ve greatly strengthened the national ports regulator. In the original draft, the intention was to have a regulator, so long as the National Ports Authority was inside of Transnet, so that the relationship between Transnet and the National Ports Authority inside of it could effectively be regulated by a third party.
However, the more we looked at the Bill, the more we had hearings and listened to different stakeholders, the more we became convinced of the importance of having a sector-specific national ports regulator with more permanence, so that we had an entity, not just the competitions commission, which, of course, is important in all of these areas, but something that had a competence in the specific and complicated area of ports to ensure that there was effective regulation in this area. We asked Icasa, for instance, to come in and give us their experience in the broadcasting sector, to give us a sense of how a sector-specific regulator might operate. They did, and we are thankful to them for that.
So, in short, what we have done is that we have given the National Ports Authority, in this piece of legislation, real power. We want it to be more than just a landlord, sitting back and taking in rent. We want it to be an active agent, planning, thinking long term, thirty years or twenty years forward, about the future of our ports, planning serious investment in our port environment.
These are absolutely critical for any sustainable economic growth and development in our country. So we want an active, proactive and powerful National Ports Authority, but it’s very important, at the same time, to make sure that it’s regulated power. Therefore, we substantially built up the sections in the original Bill dealing with the national ports regulator.
Those are, basically, the challenges which we think we’ll meet. We are glad that the Minister feels that this is a good piece of legislation. I think we also feel, in the committee, that after a long and sometimes complicated process, we have produced a good piece of legislation.
In conclusion, I’d like to thank Dumisani Ntuli and his team from the national Department of Transport, who were very patient with us and very competent in the drafting and redrafting that happened in the course of trying to give effect to the National Ports Authority Bill. Also, I’d like to thank colleagues from the Department of Public Enterprises, who were also present throughout, and the teams from Transnet and the National Ports Authority, whom we invited into the process and who helped us a great deal with their particular competency.
We’d also like to say a special word of thanks to the parliamentary law adviser, Herman Smuts, who was very patient with us and helped us a lot. Also, we thank all those who made submissions - the trade unions, the fishing industry, the National Port User Forum and the oil industry. There was a huge range of people. Many of them came back twice because we had a first draft and then a second draft, for which they came back a second time. So, to all of those who made submissions, we hope we have done justice to their submissions.
Finally, then, a word of thanks also goes to Minister Dullah Omar and also to his counterpart, Minister Jeff Radebe, the two Ministers who have a direct interest in this piece of legislation. They were supportive throughout. We’d like to thank them.
The ANC supports the National Ports Authority Bill. [Applause.]
Mr S B FARROW: Madam Speaker, the Bill before us has been nearly two years in the making. The National Ports Authority Bill was thoroughly scrutinised through public hearings at both the White Paper stages and in the final product that we have now laid before the House.
Despite the fact that the White Paper did not come back to the portfolio committee for consensus prior to us commencing work on the Bill, I must say that I can only compliment our portfolio Chair for his thorough and participatory approach in ensuring that all stakeholders had their say.
The Bill now paves the way for greater participation by the private sector in order to enable our ports to become more efficient, while at the same time acting as a catalyst for increased and competitive trade both regionally and internationally.
Ports are crucial nodal points in the transport system and play a major role in the economic growth and development of our country. For this reason, it is paramount that our ports, as part of the transport sector, continue to operate as key contributors to South Africa’s competitiveness globally.
At present our harbours are congested; they lack certain key equipment and infrastructure, and suffer from various levels of inefficiencies. This has been brought about, to a large degree, by unprecedented increase in trade since our entry into the global markets. I brought these issues up on many occasions in this House and in the media, and during the public hearings many of these same concerns were expressed.
We must accept that there is a problem with South African ports infrastructure. While the sad state of our ports is of national concern, the primary blame lies at the door of the Department of Public Enterprises. I must also concede that the shipping lines are not free from blame. Bad planning, overbooking and shortages of containers and manifest discrepancies also play a role in the congestion and delays being experienced.
These delays resulted in shipping companies slapping a US$100 surcharge on every container in all our ports in February this year. And although this surcharge has now been confined to Durban only, it had a major impact on the image of potential overseas investors and the competitiveness of our exporters, whilst importers simply pass on the costs to us, the consumers.
During April of 2002 the Portfolio Committee on Transport went on a fact- finding mission to Durban, City Deep and Pretcorn container terminals, and identified a number of constraints, as well as providing some solutions to the crisis. Much of the problems related to lack of equipment, co- ordination and the streamlining of the supply chain towards a fully integrated seamless transport system.
In a written question to the Minister of Public Enterprises about the crisis, he listed insufficient spending on equipment, lack of training, broken equipment for unloading, poor co-ordination between harbour and rail authorities, poor labour relations and many more as reasons for these delays. That was over 18 months ago. Yet despite various interventions to acquire equipment the problem is not satisfactorily addressed.
New equipment procurement takes time to build and install, and existing equipment is under severe strain through lack of maintenance. More importantly, productivity needs to be dramatically improved. We cannot continue to off-load containers at almost half the international norm. The transport Seta needs to become involved in intensive training with our crane drivers to improve productivity, whilst at the same time ensuring that routine maintenance prevents downtime by having adequately trained maintenance personnel available at all times.
Hopefully, this Bill will bring new meaning and urgency to the concessioning at some of our ports and I look forward to announcements in this regard in the not-too-distant future, particularly the Minister for Public Enterprises’s commitment to fast-tracking the Durban container facility.
The White Paper is clear in this regard and contracts linked to lease and concession agreements will constitute the two main instruments to give the private sector operators a larger role in the operations of our ports, while on the other hand terminal infrastructure and cargo handling could be privately provided and managed by concessions, leases and licences, all contained in the Bill.
I’m aware of the implications of taking away one of Transnet’s most important cash cows overnight. However, the Bill does allow for a three- phased approach towards National Ports Authority’s incorporation. This process is planned to be completed within three years of enactment of this Bill. A lot of work lies ahead.
Finally, let me just mention some salient factors with regard to two other important aspects of the Bill. The first relates to the establishment of an independent ports regulatory body. The White Paper puts its role clearly into perspective: Ports regulation needs to distinguish between technical, environmental and social oversight on the one hand, and economic oversight on the other. It gives the following basic guiding principles: avoidance of regulation where the market can freely operate and the playing field is level, without regulatory intervention, and formal separation of the responsibilities for economic regulation from port management operations. I’m pleased to note that this aspect is now being adequately addressed in the Bill as initial drafts were too restrictive, as I understood them, and bordered on interference in the management and operations of our ports.
The whole aspect of the permanence of the regulator still needs further debate, and the DA sincerely believes that its role will need constant oversight and monitoring. One questions whether the regulator will only create another layer of bureaucracy and incur the cost for Government and ports users when much of its function or anticompetitive behaviour could be handled by existing structures of the Competition Commission. The real independence of the regulator reporting directly to the Minister of Transport also needs oversight and monitoring.
Last but not least, let me talk about the landlord functions of the NPA. From something which started off as a highly controversial chapter on Maydon Wharf, it is now far more embracing and acceptable. The DA fully supports the need for the NPA to renegotiate old apartheid and discriminatory long-term leases on immovable properties and to make them more market-orientated, as outlined in clause 67. In every case where the NPA and the lessee are unable to reach an agreement, section 25 of the Constitution will apply.
Madam Speaker, I’m confident that we can make this Bill work, and with the recent appointment of Ms Maria Ramos at the helm of the Transnet vessel, I’m sure she will transform our ports into something we will be very proud of. And hopefully, the amount of R1,5 billion … Is that right, Chair? … will also be brought into the mix in trying to solve minor inefficiencies. The DA will be supporting this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Prince N E ZULU: Madam Speaker, the Bill before the House is the product of a White Paper on National Commercial Policy published last year, which identifies South Africa’s major ports as strategic entities in the transport system. They were to be globally competitive, safe and secure in order to operate at internationally accepted levels and ensure that the objectives of the Reconstruction and Development Programme and Gear were met.
These ports are identified as the largest, best equipped and most efficient on the continent of Africa and therefore need to be managed in accordance with clear guidelines and internationally approved norms and standards. The Chairman of the Portfolio Committee on Transport has just mentioned a few of these ports, Durban, Richard’s Bay, Mossel Bay, etc.
The overall objective of the Bill is to create an institutional arrangement to bring about an effective governance of ports in the country, and to ensure the establishment and operation of a National Ports Authority and the regulator. By so doing, the Bill seeks to improve management and efficient operations of ports.
Ports, as exit and entry points by sea in and out of the country, are the face and mirror that depict the real situation obtaining in a country. It is through the ports that technology and economic development reach the hinterland from our shores. Within this context the IFP will support the Bill and watch the situation closely to see whether the objectives of Gear are adhered to as best they can.
The National Ports Authority currently works as a division of Transnet and the Bill determines that such National Ports Authority continues to function until the proposed Act comes into operation on a date to be determined by the Minister. The authority to be so established shall be known as the National Ports Authority Proprietary Limited. Transnet shall be the sole member and shareholder in the new company. Since Transnet is a state-owned enterprise, the Minister for Public Enterprises shall therefore be the shareholding Minister in the new company.
In order that the new company ensures efficient and economic functioning, the Bill determines various tasks as of paramount importance, such as the development and improvement of port infrastructure, the control and use of land within the ports to ensure increased participation of historically disadvantaged persons in ports operations, etc.
It is also important to note that with all these changes, all persons in the employ of the authority at the time of its being changed into a new company will be transferred without loss of service or benefits. This condition is uppermost as workers do in some cases experience losses in different ways when such changes take place, and companies show no mercy to the victims of such situations.
Another important development in the Bill is the establishment of a body called the ports regulator, whose main task will be to hear complaints and appeals about any abuse of power by the National Ports Authority Proprietary Limited and to ensure equity in accessing port facilities, including matters of tariffs. The mandate of the regulator provides insurance for the workers and other port users that their jobs and rights are secure.
As indicated above, the IFP will watch closely as to how far the notion of privatisation is adhered to in the day-to-day operations of the new company. With its free-market-oriented policy, the IFP will oppose any attempt at policy development with a notion to nationalise assets as that does not stimulate economic growth, but instead stifles the economy and hardens the attitudes of would-be investors.
Petroleum pipelines that cut across the country, across farms and rural and traditional areas will have to be negotiated with the people so that they don’t pose any danger to people settlement; and royalties have to be agreed upon, especially in traditional areas. I thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr P M SIBANDE: Madam Speaker, Ministers, hon members and distinguished guests, I will start my speech by reciting a marvellous song, which goes thus:
Ayanqikaza ayesaba amagwala, athi kungcono sihlehlise ukhetho. Kodwa thina bakaKhongolose sithi shona malanga, shona malanga. Siyodibana okhethweni ku-ballot box. Kuyodela uMakhasana uma sezinikizana. Kuyothi sekuphuma imiphumela yokhetho, asazi ukuthi bonke laba abanemilomo emide eshwizayo, entwebayo, bayobuye bakhale ngani ngoba intando yeningi iyobe seyiyikhethile inkunzi ebhongayo kule ngabadi yakithi. Inkunzi kungaba ubani ngaphandle kukaKhongolose?
Nature blessed our country by placing our ports in strategic geographic positions on the South African coastline. The National Ports Authority which was launched on 23 August 2001 is the landlord of commercial ports. Its main task is to oversee all aspects of port management and administration. Among the duties that it is required to carry out are: the provision and maintenance of port infrastructure; control of the leasing of property for port activity; and the rendering of marine services such as navigational safety.
On an international level, the NPA’s role as port authority has been recognised in two significant ways. It was elected to host the 23rd International Association of Ports and Harbours World Ports Conference which took place in Durban earlier this year. It was the first time during the IAPH’s 45 years of existence that its conference was held in Africa. The chief executive officer, Mr Siyabonga Gama, was appointed as chairperson of the Port Management Association of Eastern and Southern Africa. It is also a first time in the 26 years of existence of the PMAESA that the chairpersonship of the association is afforded to the southern region. This international accolade is a recognition of the important role that our ports play in promoting regional economic development.
Our national ports, together with other ports in Southern Africa, play an important role in the economies of the neighbouring, landlocked members of SADC and provide a vital link in the logistic chain that binds Southern Africa. Our National Ports Authority believes in fostering co-operation and support between other African countries in pursuit of the objectives of Nepad and the African Renaissance.
At the beginning of this year, the NPA concluded an agreement with the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority in order to boost regional trade. The co- operation agreement also means that the two port authorities will put forward similar viewpoints at international conferences to promote a common vision for ports in the region.
The NPA has also been very active in terms of its own transformation. Ten years ago, the board of the NPA was entirely made up of white men. Since then, the authority has made great strides in terms of addressing gender and race imbalances among its employees. Ports serve as vital elements of our economic prosperity. The ports of South Africa are the uterus of national commerce. The economy’s health is more dependent on water transportation of goods than on any other single form of commercial traffic. Annually, about 98% of our country’s international trade flows into and out of our country via its ports. It also has a multiplier effect on the economy of the region.
The ANC’s vision for our national ports is that our ports should support the goals and objectives of the RDP, Gear and Nepad. In order to deliver its vision, we need, amongst others things, to increase our investment in ports infrastructure; improve safety and security and the reliability of ports operations; and promote good employment practices. In a nutshell, it means that we will have to modernise the management and operation of our national ports to enable them to cope better with the rapid increase of goods flowing in and out of the country due to South Africa’s increased growth rate. Our country’s economic success makes it essential to expand critical ports infrastructure and strengthen the regulation and management of our national ports.
Our ports are on the brink of a new era which will be heralded by the adoption, today, of the National Ports Authority Bill that is supported by the ANC. The Bill seeks to address the problems and challenges that face the South African ports. It represents a common vision of the role that our commercial ports can and must play in meeting the basic needs of our people, developing our human resources, and in building the economy.
One of the biggest challenges that face our ports is the growth of containerised cargo. At the beginning of this year there were some concerns over container congestion at the Durban and Cape Town container terminals. While opposition parties were quick to jump on this as evidence of incompetence in these ports, the backlogs were really caused by shipments that were unusually large in volume, which contributed to the build-up of ships waiting outside the ports. What these opposition parties omitted to say was that the Durban container terminal handled, on average, 3 149 containers during the congested period. It also set a new daily container handling record of 4 465, which is the equivalent of 1,6 million containers a year and is 50% above the design capacity of the terminal.
Each of the seven major ports plays an important role in making our country an attractive investment destination. The port of Durban is the busiest port in Southern Africa and handles about 5 000 commercial vessels annually, and brings in 31,4 million tons of cargo worth R50 000 billion per year - which represents 65% of the total revenue earned by South African ports.
The port of Cape Town, in turn, is strategically placed on the world sea routes and is ideally situated to serve as a harbour for cargoes between Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania. The port of East London boasts of having the largest export grain elevator in South Africa and has recently been converted to handle imports in addition to exports. It also has a car terminal which has one of the fastest times for moving imported units from ships to their final points. Forward ever, backwards never! The ANC supports the Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mnr J J NIEMANN: Mevrou die Speaker, weens omstandighede buite my beheer het ek baie min van die Portefeuljekomitee oor Vervoer se besprekings en belanghebbendes se voorleggings oor die National Ports Authority Bill bygewoon, maar tydens dié wat ek wel bygewoon het, was ek besonder beïndruk deur die baie deeglike voorleggings en besprekings, asook die debatvoering wat plaasgevind het, sodat ek vandag kan sê ek is oortuig dat dit ‘n baie goeie, deurtrapte wetsontwerp is wat ons aan die Raad vir goedkeuring voorlê. Dus is dit ook vir my aangenaam om te kan aankondig dat die Nuwe NP die wetsontwerp aanvaar en dit beslis in alle opsigte sal steun.
Vir ‘n land soos Suid-Afrika is daar drie baie belangrike komponente nodig om ‘n suksesvolle land te word. Eerstens moet die land oor ‘n baie deeglike en moderne spoorwegstelsel beskik wat aanhoudend opgegradeer moet word sodat die landbou-, die mynbou- en die baie ander uitvoerprodukte vinnig na die hawens vervoer kan word.
Tweedens moet daar ook ‘n padnetwerk wees wat om dieselfde redes produkte van watter aard ook al spoedig en veilig by die hawens kan lewer. Om dit te bereik moet daar deurlopende, basiese instandhouding en opgradering van ons padnetwerk wees. In albei genoemde gevalle gaan daar in die volgende paar jaar enorme bedrae geld bestee word. Die eindpunt is die hawens. Die hawens sit ook met enorme probleme om die steeds toenemende vrag in- en uitvoere te hanteer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr J J NIEMANN: Madam Speaker, due to circumstances beyond my control, I attended very few of the Portfolio Committee on Transport’s discussions and interested parties’ submissions on the National Ports Authority Bill, but during those that I did in fact attend, I was particularly impressed by the very thorough submissions and discussions as well as the level of debate, that I can say today that I am convinced that this is a very well- scrutinised Bill we are bringing before the House for approval. It is therefore a pleasure to announce that the New National Party accepts the Bill and will support it in all respects.
For a country like South Africa to become a successful country, three very important components are needed. Firstly, the country must have a thorough and modern railway system which must be upgraded constantly in order for agriculture, mining and the many other export products to be transported speedily to the ports.
Secondly, there must also be a road network that, for the same reasons, must deliver products of any kind quickly and safely to the ports. To achieve this, there must be continuous, basic maintenance and upgrading of our road network. In both of the cases mentioned considerable amounts of money is going to be spent over the next few years. The final destination is the ports. The ports are also faced with enormous problems in dealing with the ever-increasing load of imports and exports.] The upgrading and modernisation of our harbours are at least 10 to 15 years overdue. The main purpose of the National Ports Authority Bill is to ensure that ports in our country comply with the modern demands by making provision for efficient, safe and affordable port services.
Furthermore, in the first instance, the Bill seeks to create a legal and institutional framework conducive to the regulation and management of ports. Secondly, it provides for the establishment of the National Ports Authority as a stand-alone entity outside Transnet. Thirdly, the Bill provides for the creation of an independent ports regulator whose function will be, in the first instance, to oversee the relationship between the authority and Transnet whilst it is still part of Transnet; and, in the second instance, ensure that South African ports remain competitive.
En om kompeterend te wees in die vinnig veranderende wêreld sal ons in Suid- Afrika ‘n nuwe kultuur van werketiek moet skep, anders sal ons nié met die res van die moderne wêreld kan kompeteer nie. Ek dank u. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[And to be competitive in the fast-changing world, we will have to establish a new culture of work ethic in South Africa, or we will not be able to compete with the rest of the modern world. I thank you. [Interjections.]]
Ms C DUDLEY: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, the ACDP supports this legislation which allows the ports authority to become the landowner of the ports. This, in turn, allows for the franchising of port facilities and opens the door for full-blown commercialisation and privatisation. This is a positive move, with the promise of more efficient and effective port services.
The necessary safeguards, however, must ensure that we do not simply move from a state monopoly to a private monopoly. As our market is not strong enough, it is essential that the ports become a strong, all-user facility so as not to reduce competition and risk shutting out shipping lines. Any practice which discourages shipping lines would be to the detriment of the ports and South Africa as a whole.
The difference, for example, between London and Cape Town, is that London has nine port authorities while Cape Town has one. That makes an all-user facility imperative. Any move towards privatisation and commercialisation will, of course, bring with it concerns that workers’ rights will be prejudiced. This perception, however, is unfortunate as efficient and effective ports will improve and generate new business, and create more opportunities for workers in general. Congested, ineffective and inefficient ports strike at the heart of the economy and, therefore, negatively impact on all South Africans.
However, in the Bill it appears that two of the most important bodies were not consulted in this process, namely, the Association of Shipping Lines and the SA Association of Freight Forwarders. Hon Minister, if this is so, was there a reason for that? Finally, the ACDP notes that this Bill follows the present trend of hybrid legislation. Empowerment issues should be dealt with in empowerment legislation and not unnecessarily adorn all other legislation. The ACDP welcomes this Bill and will vote in favour of it. I thank you.
Mrs M A SEECO: Madam Speaker, the UCDP supports this Bill. The process was a lengthy one, since an interdepartmental task team and steering committee was set up. Transnet and all its divisions were also actively involved. The National Ports Authority Bill aims to promote the policy goals of the White Paper by providing for the establishment of two key institutions, namely, the National Ports Authority and the ports regulator.
The seven commercial ports in South Africa - Richards Bay, Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, Mossel Bay, Cape Town and Saldanha Bay - are some of the largest, best-equipped and most efficient ports on the continent. Due to their important role in the import and export of goods within the subcontinent, it is vital that commercial ports are managed in accordance with clear guidelines and principles.
The Bill’s aim focuses on the establishment and operation of the National Ports Authority and the ports regulator. It also deals with other regulated matters aimed at improving the management and operation of ports. The National Ports Authority of South Africa is already in existence as a division of Transnet. Therefore the Bill determines that the present National Ports Authority must continue to function as the authority until the proposed Act comes into effect.
The ports regulator will consist of a chairperson and, at most, four other members who will be appointed by the Minister of Transport for a period not exceeding five years, and may be reappointed. The Minister of Transport is also responsible for appointing a chief executive officer for the ports regulator, who in turn may appoint the employees necessary to carry out the duties of the regulator.
The Bill requires the shareholding Minister, that is the Minister for Public Enterprises, to take the necessary steps to convert the authority into a public company on the date of the authority’s conversion into the National Ports Authority (Pty) Ltd. The state, through Transnet, becomes the only member and shareholder of the authority.
The main function of the National Ports Authority (Pty) Ltd will be to own, manage, control and administer ports in such a manner that will ensure that there is efficient and economic functioning. The Bill determines various tasks to be conducted by authorities, such as to develop and improve port infrastructure and to control land use within ports, for example, through the licensing of activities.
With South Africa’s seven commercial ports amongst the sixteen biggest ports in Southern Africa, the National Ports Authority is the largest port authority in the region. I thank you.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, it is noted that national ports play an important and vital role in the economic growth of South Africa. The extension of their activity from entrance and exit points to major industrial and logistic focal points is profitable.
With the state of our economy and the challenge of poverty, the MF is supportive of all sectors beneficial to the betterment of our economy. Noting the economic benefits which our national ports contribute, the MF supports the provisions of the National Ports Authority Bill that allow for the establishment of a National Ports Authority that will own, manage, control and administer ports on behalf of the state.
Concern is extended, though, as to the checks and balances involved in this. With corruption as a weakness, the MF seeks the maintenance of monitoring to ensure efficient and effective management of this authority’s strict adherence to the role it is adopting. However, the MF is confident that the board will represent an efficient membership that will manage this adequately and sufficiently. Concern is also extended regarding the process of transferring staff from the Transnet National Ports Authority to this authority. It is hoped that this process will not have a negative effect on employment.
Provision made for our disadvantaged groups is encouraging though. The MF has no objections to the transfer of ports, land and other rights and obligations to this authority, as long as it is conducted in the most cost- effective manner.
The MF is confident that the establishment of this authority will prove beneficial to our economy and supports this Bill. Thank you very much. [Applause]
Mrs N D MBOMBO: Madam Speaker …
An HON MEMBER: Malibongwe! [Let it be praised!]
Mrs N D MBOMBO: Igama lamakhosikazi! [The name of women!] Hon Madam Speaker, Ministers, comrades and the House at large, the purpose of my contribution today is to look at the issue of fisheries in the context of the restructuring of our country’s national ports.
The South African industry has a vested interest in the ports throughout South Africa, and has made significant investments in upgrading and maintaining property leased by them in ports. In making submissions at our hearings, their primary concern related to the clauses which provide an outline for intervention by the National Ports Authority in existing leases or licences in ports. There are three grounds upon which the NPA can intervene in existing leases or licences. In terms of the Bill, the National Ports Authority is empowered to order matters properly, and this is necessary to improve the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of the port operations. In their view, these measures to vary or terminate existing lease agreements were not desirable and should have been taken out of the Bill entirely.
Iinjongo eziphambili zoMthetho-sihlomelo kukususa kuTransnet uxanduva lweenkqubo nolawulo lwamazibuko ukuze lugqithiselwe kwiNational Ports Authority, inkampani ezimeleyo, nakubatyalimali, kwandulwe kumiselwe inkampani kawonke-wonke eya kuba phantsi kweliso loMphathiswa waMashishini kaRhulumente. Khange ibe ziinjongo zoMthetho-sihlomelo ukuchasa igalelo elibalulekileyo lezoqoqosho elidalwa lushishino ngeentlanzi kumazibuko akweli, kubandakanywa noqoqosho lweli lizwe ngokubanzi. Siyazingca kakhulu ngokuthi amashishini eentlanzi atyale imali ngokuthi aqeshe izakhiwo kumazibuko ethu.
Njengoko sele kucacisiwe, kujoliswe kwimo yaseMuidenhof eThekwini. Mayicace gca into yokuba lo Mthetho-sihlomelo awuzi kunika magunya kwinkampani yamazibuko kuzwelonke ngenjongo yokutshintsha okanye yokuphelisa isivumelwano sokuqesha izakhiwo nakanjani na. IKomiti yasePalamente ejongene nalo mba izazi kakuhle iziphumo zokudungadunga imvisiswano ephakathi kwabasebenzi bamazibuko nabaphathi bawo. Siyazi saye silindele ukuba ezi zivumelwano zingafane ziphazanyiswe nanjani na ngaphandle kokuba imo igunyazise oko. Noxa sivuma ukuba kufanele sibe nenkathalo mayela noqeshiso lwezakhiwo kwanezinye izixhobo ezihambisana noko ngakumbi xa inkampani kawonke-wonke yamazibuko ineenjongo ezimdaka xa ifuna ukuhlaziya izigqibo. Ayizonjongo zoMthetho-sihlomelo ukuhlaziya isigqibo ngasinye, ngakumbi ezo zandulela ukutyikitywa kwamagatya anxululmene nocalu-calulo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[The main objective of this Bill is the transfer from Transnet to the National Ports Authority, an independent company, and shareholders management of port operations, and the subsequent formation of a public company under the leadership of the Minister of Public Enterprises. It has never been the intention of this Bill to nullify the important economic contribution of fisheries to this country’s harbours, including the economy of this country. We are very proud of the fact that fisheries have invested money by leasing buildings in our harbours.
As has been explained earlier, this is directed at Maydon Wharf in Durban. The point must be made that this Bill doesn’t grant unfettered powers to the National Ports Authority to change or annul lease agreements at will. The portfolio committee is fully aware of what happens when agreements between port staff and port managers are tampered with. We expect these agreements not to be tampered with unless the situation warrants it.
We agree that we should be careful around the issue of the leasing of buildings and related equipment, particularly in cases where the public company shows some ulterior motives when renewing contracts. It is not the intention of the Bill to renew every contract, particularly those that were entered into prior to the signing of clauses related to discrimination.]
Some long-term leases, particularly those that were concluded a long time ago, contain discriminatory clauses. A simple example would be leases which contain clauses that prohibit a lessee from subletting immovable property to people that were excluded from occupying property in a certain area in terms of the Group Areas Act.
Masingacimeli sivale amehlo ngathi yonke into ilungile, kube kusonakala. Siphethe ikrele ngoku, uMgaqo-siseko wenkululeko osivule amehlo. Sizibona ngo`see,’ ngawo omabini izenzo ezigwenxa nobuqhophololo.
Ndihlaba ikhwelo kumakhosikazi malunga namathuba aza kuvezwa ngulo mthetho, lokuba indima yawo ibonakale, angabi ngabaqeshwa bokwenza umsebenzi ophantsi koko babe ngabaqeshi. Makhosikazi! (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Let us not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that everything is okay when it is not. We now have the weapon in our hand, a democratic Constitution, which has opened our eyes to a number of opportunities. We see with both eyes any unbecoming and corrupt practices.
I appeal to women regarding the opportunities that will flow from this Bill, that they should play a visible role, and that they should not content themselves with the menial jobs, but be employers. Women!]
We cannot run away from the fact that there may be instances where a lease agreement has been concluded to use a port for a particular activity, but the port has since been used for absolutely unrelated activities, nor can we allow a situation in which immovable property that is a subject of a lease agreement should continue to be used even when it is clear that such use does not contribute towards the efficient and effective use of the port.
Our ports are a national asset which plays an important social and economic role. Our National Ports Authority needs, therefore, to be empowered to look at those leases and to see how it can best deal with such leases to ensure that they contribute towards government, social and economic development. However, the Bill is not intended to be a sledgehammer for transformation of the fishing industry. There are other interventions that are specifically designed to deal with these aspects, such as the Broad- based Black Economic Empowerment Bill and fishing quotas.
Ngaloo magama ke sithi makhosikazi vukani. Sibulela kakhulu kuMphathiswa uDullah Omar - akakho ngoku. O-o, bendingakuboni Tata. Sibulela kakhulu nakuwe qabane uJeremy, nakuwo onke amaqabane ekomiti yezothutho anike ingxelo apha. Sibulela nakwabasincedisayo, uNozipho neqela lakhe, nakubonke abanye abakhoyo apha. Somlomo, ngaloo mazwi ndithi, Phambili ngamakhosikazi! [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[With those words we say: Women, stand up and be counted. Special thanks go to Minister Dullah Omar - he is not here. Oh!, I didn’t see you, sir. We thank you too, Comrade Jeremy, and all the comrades in the transport committee who made contributions here. We also thank the staff, Nozipho and her group, and everybody else present here. Speaker, with those words I say: “Forward with women!” [Applause.]] The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I apologise to hon Mbombo for moving from my seat and making it a little bit more difficult for her to see me.
I want to thank all the hon members who participated in this debate and discussion. It is quite clear that the work which was done in the portfolio committee has had very positive results. I was a bit disappointed in only one aspect of what hon Farrow said. He was wondering whether it was correct that the port regulator should be reporting to the Minister, on the basis that that undermines or potentially undermines the independence of the port regulator.
I obviously do not agree with him. The port regulator has to report to some authority. The current situation is that everything resides in Public Enterprises. So we are now going to have a situation where the ports operations will be carried on through Public Enterprises, but the regulation will no longer be done through that department. Naturally, we will respect the independence of the port regulator and the port regulator will report to the Minister of Transport. I should point out that in the case of the SA Maritime Safety Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, Air Traffic Navigation Services and the new Rail Safety Authority, all of them report to the Minister of Transport. Not a single one of them has had any problem with regard to their independence.
Hon Dudley asked a question. I’m not quite sure whether my answer will cover the question that she asked. My impression is that the two organisations that she mentioned were represented on the National Port Users Forum and that they participated through that forum. I hope I’m correct in that regard, but that is the instruction that I got. If they were not consulted, there was no intention of excluding them at all. Of course, there is going to be consultative committees which will be set up under the Act, and there will be adequate opportunities for consultation. I am personally very keen that those consultative processes should proceed as quickly as possible. Lastly, I just want to agree with all hon members, those who have commented on this, that the Bill makes good provisions for institutional arrangements and these have been satisfactorily dealt with. However, there is also a great deal of work that lies ahead.
I want to indicate that we have looked at each mode specifically, but also each mode in relation to others because we must move towards an integrated transport system. That is the reason I agree with hon Niemann that rail, road and harbour are important.
Ek wil net die een byvoeg wat u gemis het, en dit is ons lughawens. [Tussenwerpsels.] Ek weet, u het net vir ‘n oomblik daarvan vergeet. [I just want to add the one that you have missed, and that is our airports. [Interjections.] I know, you just forgot about it for the moment.]
Of course, pipelines were mentioned and they are a Transport issue. Again, we need to look at all of them. What we are doing at national Government level is to look at the logistics system so as to ensure that there is seamless movement of goods and people through different transport nodes, and from transport nodes to a point of consumption. So these are all matters that are receiving attention and I have no doubt that we’ll be reporting back to Parliament in due course. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Deputy Speaker and hon members, I would like to begin by thanking the House for agreeing to the Higher Education Amendment Bill, on which there will be no debate. This will, for the first time, bring about higher education opportunities in a planned and rational way to the people of Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape, as the legislation establishes national higher education institutes in each of these provinces.
The Education Laws Amendment Bill has not had such an easy passage. I want to address those members who may oppose the proposed legislation, in an attempt to get them to review their positions. Typically, the amending Bill covers a range of matters in different pieces of legislation, and some have received more prominence than others. Some of these have been described as protecting quality education. In fact, they have been more about consolidating existing class differences in public education, with a view to limiting the distribution of knowledge.
With knowledge, the most valuable asset in society, the wish to provide only a few with opportunities to gain an early advantage through schooling is very strong, but that is not compatible with a public education system premised on the constitutional values of justice, equity and dignity for all.
Before I deal with the more contentious aspects, let me remind you of some of the other important elements of the Bill, provisions you may be rejecting. A particular provision is the change of name of the General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Council, otherwise known by the most cumbersome title I’ve encountered, GENFETQA.
I’m sure you must agree that the name of Umalusi is a great improvement, and not just for the sound of it. Umalusi, which means ``the shepherd’’, symbolises the important function of the council in protecting and preserving standards among the huge flock of education providers and assessment bodies which make up the education system.
One problem we have faced, secondly, in the disciplining of errant teachers, is that of inconsistent sentencing. Findings and sentences are determined by the presiding officer, who is appointed on a case-by-case basis, and these decisions are not always consistent. At present, the person charged has the right to appeal against both the finding and the sentence, but the provincial departments, or their employers, do not have that right.
We, therefore, propose these amendments, so that findings and sentences that might be out of line with similar charges and sentences in other cases can be taken on appeal to the Member of the Executive Council in the province or the Minister. I hope that this measure to amend the Employment of Educators Act is supported.
This leaves but one aspect: the amendment of the South African Schools Act. This provision compels school governing bodies to get prior approval from the provincial department of education to award a teacher an additional amount over and above his or her salary paid by the state. This is a very curious piece of legislation for two reasons; one is that it’s highly extraordinary to allow a public servant to receive financial favours over and above his or her state salary. So, in allowing this to happen, although in a regulated fashion through legislation, we will, undoubtedly, be stretching the international conventions about benefits in the public service.
We certainly do not allow additional payments to magistrates, to the police or nurses. So teachers have a somewhat special privilege here. To merely require that this legislation, this special dispensation, be managed in an open and orderly fashion hardly seems unreasonable.
You’ll recall the scandalous case of a school principal in Mpumalanga, who received all kinds of extraordinary benefits from the school governing body
- a motor car, domestic servants and groceries. This amendment will stop that kind of abuse.
The second point of curiosity is that the legislation simply mirrors an existing provision of the Employment of Educators Act, which already prohibits teachers from accepting additional remuneration without the prior approval of the employer. In my view, this is a scandalous provision because it victimises the teacher, a teacher who will be acting in good faith because he is being provided with additional payment by the school governing body.
However, in any employment context, there are two parties, and while we have provisions to penalise teachers who are accepting money which, in my view, is really victimisation, we have no basis for dealing with the body which paid them in contravention of the existing law.
So we say that if a governing body wishes to recompense a teacher for genuine, additional work or effort, they should inform the provincial department of the matter and request authorisation. This is hardly a stripping of the authority of governing bodies, as some have argued, but a genuine attempt to build transparency and accountability, which other speakers will refer to, into the working of the system.
I would like to draw members’ attention to pages 14 and 15 of the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill, which deals with a recent case in the Limpopo province, in which the court made it quite clear that a financial commitment by a school governing body to a teacher would become the responsibility of the employer, which is the province, if the governing body were subsequently to change its mind about the decision on the commitment. In other words, given that school governing bodies are elected afresh from time to time, and they are doing it now, this is one very good reason why this amendment is necessary.
We have heard too many stories from parents of how they were hoodwinked at the fee-setting meeting, where a generic item called salaries was included in the budget, without specifying how much, to whom and for what the payments were made. Democratic decision-making requires this kind of information. In fact, it bolsters the parents. It enhances the role of the parents in taking these decisions.
Additional payments for teachers, if contemplated, must be for work that is over and above the normal requirements of the state posts which they occupy. No one should be paid extra for just doing their job. There is also no need to pay more to reward top performers, as some have claimed, since we now have a system of performance management in place, which rewards, for the first time, good teaching on an objective and equitable basis.
Where a teacher is required to go beyond the call of duty, as many do in townships and in the Model C schools, we have no principled objection to them being rewarded for this, providing the parents agree. This might include additional time spent on some activity such as preparation for sports day, school plays, choirs or other events. Extra work should also include additional intellectual effort, since this is an academic profession, where we should reward people who think about what they are doing and help others to improve. A bonus to a teacher who was asked to lead a team developing cross-curricular themes or materials could also be a very valid request for additional payment.
However, we should be quite clear that this is not a money-making exercise. Most schools have insufficient funds to do anything, let alone pay teachers an additional salary. We cannot allow this practice to further skew the labour market, with teachers more and more resistant to teaching in poor schools for want of salary top-ups.
We cannot allow the few qualified maths and science teachers to be tempted from public schools in the townships to those in town because of higher pay by the school. We have one public school system with one salary system, and any deviations from this must be well-justified, well-planned and authorised.
Let us remember that for many years teachers have voluntarily taken responsibility for a host of extramural activities, including sporting and cultural activities. Teachers, even today, spend many hours, often late into the night, to do their bit for the school, whatever it may be. They do this for the love of the children, the pride of their profession and many would be contemptuous if offered extra pay.
So I hope governing bodies are not prompting a system where anything outside the classroom becomes overtime and the only motive for hard work is a salary top-up. This would be a sad day. In considering requests, I would caution provincial departments to consider the real need for such payments, where they exist, and the possible consequences to the equitable utilisation of teachers.
I see no menace in this Bill. The Council of Education Ministers has agreed unanimously that additional payments should be permitted under certain circumstances. I would even understand those who opposed the Bill for this reason and say to them that I will be monitoring the situation, based on provincial reports. If it’s being abused, we will amend it again. If the provinces can’t fulfil their duties, we’ll have a look at it again.
To those who oppose it because they would like to see the free market operate within our school system, I would remind them of where we have come from: an education system with huge differences and divisions. We are aiming to create a more equitable society, and we can never do so by providing unequal education.
I should also remind the House that there is a transitional provision so as to enable school governing bodies to make appropriate arrangements so the Act will not come into effect until the middle of next year. This will give them sufficient time to make alternative arrangements.
I commend this to you, and I’m sure you’ll agree with the proposals. I implore you to reconsider your stance, those who oppose it, because the vast majority of South African teachers, parents, organisations and the South African public support this. You see, we speak for the vast majority of people in this country, and this is necessary in order to have a rational school system without penalising real merit, real effort and real activity by those teachers who are contributing so much to our school and public life. Thank you very much, hon members. [Applause.]
Mr W P DOMAN: Deputy Speaker, the aim to regulate the extra payment of state teachers by school governing bodies is another effort by the ANC Government to try to bring equality about by reducing successful incentives for quality education, rather than attending to the complex and poorly supported environment in which teachers work. Instead of thanking parents for making their money available to retain scarce skilled teachers, and reward hard-working teachers, the Minister is kicking these parents in the teeth and driving good teachers out of public schools.
The devastating effect of clause 2 will be felt in 2005 when it comes into operation. Scarce skilled and excellent teachers will leave the public school system for private schools, for overseas, and/or leave the profession altogether. Teachers at struggling schools will move to greener pastures within the public school system, and in the end the schools with the most vulnerable learners will suffer the most. This is also an attack on the poor. Yes, all the learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, who in their thousands entered former Model C schools and Section 21 schools, will experience that a better quality education is yet again being taken away from them. No wonder one Bongani Sopam of Khayelitsha also complained in the submissions to the department, because at his school they also pay teachers extra for extra work.
It is a fact that many promotion posts are carried by school governing bodies. Why? Because of a lack of state money and the unfairness in the existing system, for example, where senior teachers in SGB positions have to start on notch 1 when becoming a state employee. Governing bodies have also learned that it is simply not possible to manage complex schools on the promotion posts provided. The Minister should rather address these inequalities and ensure that there are enough promotion incentives than to ban the assistance that SGBs are currently providing in this regard.
In the long term our economy is going to suffer as a result of poorer quality education. Sport and other cultural activities will suffer as teachers become more and more apathetic towards extracurricular activities. Even school hostels will suffer. The platteland is going to be affected most severely, because there is a moratorium on the employment of noneducator staff and teachers won’t be allowed to fill these duties.
Can you believe that this Bill instructs that any unauthorised payment must be reclaimed from parents and teachers serving on SGBs? In the submissions it is stated that teacher unions might be advising their teachers not to serve on SGBs in the future because of this financial liability. Parents will lose interest in serving on SGBs, and will no longer be prepared to pay school fees if they cannot decide themselves how they can apply it to remunerate quality teachers.
It is no use hiding behind the possibility of creating new SGB posts because we all know it is much cheaper to divide responsibilities among existing teachers. In the Western Cape only 900, instead of the necessary 1 900, this year started their studies to become teachers. Everyone acknowledges that we have a huge shortage of teachers in South Africa, especially in maths and science. This very fact, and the fact that the education department has to compete with the private sector and overseas opportunities, should have guided the Minister towards embracing what SGBs are doing by paying teachers extra.
With the irresponsible severance packages a few years ago, the Government stripped the country of hundreds of its best teachers. I predict that this piece of legislation is going to be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back. Public schools’ quality will inevitably be affected, but of course the ANC elite who can afford it will send their children and their grandchildren to private schools, and to the about 100 schools in the country that will be able to circumvent this legislation.
In practice this clause won’t work. School governing bodies must apply four months before they finalise their budgets which normally happens, at the latest, by November. They will have to apply in July at the latest, but Minister Asmal’s own policy lays down that schools must receive their staff allocation by the end of September from the provincial department. How can they apply if they don’t know how many teachers they are going to have, and how the duties will be divided?
Then subsection 3(a) adds insult to injury by demanding that full details of the payment must accompany an application. How will this be possible if they don’t even know what the details will be? Furthermore, if a vacancy arises during the year it is not clear whether the SGB can offer extra pay to the new incumbent if it was not approved in the budget, or whether the SGB must then apply and wait up to three months for a reply in which case that teacher would have left that school because he or she was not prepared to wait that long.
Then subsection 8 requires that any extra payment must be reflected in the school’s budget with the specific purpose to inform the parents at the budget meeting in November of such payments. But when the Government deals with that application in July to September, they don’t even know whether it will be reflected or what the parents are going to decide.
Finally, there is no time restriction for MECs to deal with an appeal and
the answer we received is that the SGBs will have to go to court if they
don’t get an answer in a reasonable time. No wonder that with legislation
like this a teacher wrote in a letter to The Star the other day, We
experience the education department as our enemy!''. And I see that the
Financial Mail has a very nice photo of the Minister:System’s failure -
why Minister Asmal is to blame’’.
The DA offered a clear amendment. Firstly, leave the decision with the SGBs. Secondly, give them stricter guidelines in this Bill. Thirdly, force them to detail disclosure to parents, and enable the parents to make the decision. Fourthly, let SGBs report to the education department what parents decided so that they know what is going on. Fifthly, we were even prepared to say give the department a veto with an appeal process if the school is transgressing the rules; and lastly, give legal clarity that any extra payment will be a contract between an SGB and a teacher that does not bind the department in any way.
Die DA se amendement, en ‘n soortgelyke een van die ACDP, is egter verwerp in een van die swakste komitee optredes wat ek nog in my loopbaan van 14 jaar gesien het. Gaan kyk na die komitee se program -dis vir almal om te sien. Die ANC wou hierdie wetsontwerp, plus nog een se informele bespreking, plus twee voorleggings, op een oggend tussen nege-uur en elfuur afhandel. As ek nie gevra het vir die voorleggings aan die departement oor die konsepwetsontwerp nie, het ons nie hierdie pak eers te siene gekry nie.
Die ANC het geweier dat ons enige publieke verhoor het om selfs na die enkele hoofrolspelers te luister. Die aanvanklike konsepwetsontwerp het alle ekstra betaling verbied. Die hele proses van aansoek doen is as ‘n kompromis ingevoer, maar hierdie hele proses was nooit voor die publiek nie. Ons weet nie eers wat die onderwysdepartemente in die provinsies daaroor dink nie en of hulle dit kan uitvoer nie.
Die hantering van hierdie wetsontwerp is ‘n skande vir die parlementêre proses. Een amptenaar se woord is oor alles aanvaar, en dis die amptenaar wat die wet geskryf het. Hy is magtiger as hierdie Parlement. Die ANC, nie hierdie amptenaar nie, sal die verantwoordelikheid moet dra as hierdie wet in die praktyk gaan misluk.
Ten slotte is ek geskok dat die Nuwe NP die enigste party in die komitee was wat saam met die ANC op elke klousule saamgestem het. Verlede jaar het die Nuwe NP nog teen ‘n wet gestem wat skoolbeheerliggame se magte aantas, maar hulle het nou nie eers meer die integriteit om by hierdie beginsel te staan nie. Sewe-en-sewentig persent van Die Burger se lesers het in ‘n meningsopname hulle teen hierdie wetgewing oor beheerliggame se magte uitgespreek. In die Wes-Kaap gaan dit ‘n gevoelige slag wees, veral vir hoërskole wat finansieel sukkel. As net die bruin ouers in die Wes-Kaap besef wat die ANC en die Nuwe NP met hierdie wet doen, dan sal hulle nie een stem uit daardie gemeenskap volgende jaar kry nie. Ek dank u almal. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The DA’s amendment, and a similar one from the ACDP, were rejected, however, in one of the most deplorable actions of a committee that I have ever seen in my career of 14 years. Go and have a look at the committee’s programme - it is clear for all to see. The ANC wanted to deal with this Bill, as well as the informal discussion of another one, as well as two submissions in one morning between nine and eleven o’ clock. If I did not request to see the submissions to the department regarding the draft Bill we would never even have seen this stack.
The ANC refused us any public hearing even to listen to the few key role- players. The initial draft Bill prohibited all extra payment. The entire process of applying was added in a compromise, but this whole process was never brought before the public. We do not even know what the departments of education in the provinces think of it, or whether they can put it into practice.
The way this Bill was handled was a disgrace to the parliamentary process. One official’s word was accepted above everything, and that was the official who wrote the Act. He is more powerful than this Parliament. The ANC, and not this official, will have to bear the responsibility if this Act fails in practice.
In conclusion, I am shocked that the New NP was the only party in the committee that agreed with the ANC on every clause. Last year the New NP still voted against an Act that affected school governing bodies’ powers, but now they do not even have the integrity to stand by this principle. Seventy-seven percent of Die Burger’s readers expressed their opposition against this legislation regarding governing bodies’ powers in an opinion poll. In the Western Cape this will be a hard blow, especially for high schools that are struggling financially. If only the coloured parents in the Western Cape realise what the ANC and New NP are doing with this Act, then they will not get one vote from that community next year. I thank you all. [Applause.]]
Prof S M MAYATULA: Madam Deputy Speaker, how I wish all the parties did go to the meetings of the portfolio committee so that they would not find themselves being misled as to what took place there.
We bent over backwards to accommodate the DA, and we did things we have never done before. This is a Bill that we are not even supposed to be debating because everything is contained here. For some reason the hon Doman is telling this House that it was said in the committee that those who had a problem must go to court. Go to clause 10; it says the direct opposite.
Again, an impression has been created that in this Bill the ANC and other parties are saying that school governing bodies should not give teachers extra funds. You will not find that in this Bill.
I will confine myself to clause 2 only, because all the parties that
attended agreed on all the other clauses. This particular clause reads as
follows: Prohibition of payment of ... '', and I underline this here -
… unauthorised remuneration, or giving financial benefit or benefit in
kind … ‘’. Why is this unauthorised? It is unauthorised in the sense
that, as we speak, if a teacher employed by the state receives an extra
package without getting approval, that is against the law.
This is nothing new, and the school governing bodies are at the forefront of employing teachers. We have been told here that this Bill is taking away the powers of school governing bodies. What powers? It is this Government that changed the school committees into school governing bodies, and for the first time there is no teacher - I mean state teacher - that can go to any school without going through a school governing body.
A school governing body tells a teacher: I'm employing you under these
terms. I'm going to pay you R20 for doing A, B, C.'' The same school
governing body knows that, according to the Educators' Employment Act, if
this teacher got more it would be against the law. The school governing
body, the very structure that employed this teacher and told him or her the
terms of employment - and it does not pay this teacher; this teacher is
paid by the department - representing the department in the school as a
school governing body, says:Teacher, I’m employing you. I’m going to pay
you this much for doing A, B, C.’’ Suddenly the same school governing body,
behind the back of the department, goes to the same teacher and says, ``I’m
going to give you more’’.
This Bill is not saying you cannot pay him or her more. All it is saying is that if you reach a stage at which, in order for these kids to understand mathematics better - the one hour we are giving them at the school not being enough - I want this teacher to give them one more hour and I’m going to give him or her R10 for that.
The department says: ``Surely, SGB, as you agreed earlier, if you are going to pay him or her R10, why don’t you bring this forward so that together we know that the terms of employment of this teacher have changed and he or she is going to be paid more.’’
Again, we are not legislating for exceptions here. You are in a school for years as a school governing body and as a principal. You know you’re experienced, and you are saying that in the past five or 10 years, you have experienced that you need a teacher for rugby; you need a teacher for mathematics; you need a teacher for this or that, and you want to pay more money for that. In so doing, you budget for it and give it to them. That is all this is saying.
Why should we allow the teachers to be penalised for getting more, and say to the very structure that employed them, ``No. Feel free. Give them,’’ because that is where the problem is. Let us not mislead the public. This Bill does not say that teachers who do worthy work should not be paid for it. All it says is that the teachers are not allowed to get more without consulting their employer. The public schools are not private schools. [Interjections.] Whatever happens in a school when the chips are down, the buck stops with the department, not the SGB.
All the SGB did … [Interjections.] Let me go again through all the documentation. We went through it. The question is: Why did we not have public hearings? I can answer that. [Interjections.] We went through all the publications, all the submissions - I’m going to go through some of them - to show that if you go to the contentious clause, that is clause 2, you will find that all the submissions have been accommodated in this Bill. [Interjections.]
I quote one: The school governing body of Westville Girls High … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!
Dr C P MULDER: Madam Speaker, is the hon member prepared to answer a question? [Interjections.]
Prof S M MAYATULA: Not now. Not now, please.
Dr C P MULDER: I need some clarity, so will it come at the end of your speech; is that what you are saying? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon member. The hon member is not prepared to take your question.
Dr C P MULDER: Not at all?
Prof S M MAYATULA: Now I want to quote the submissions. The school governing body of Westville Girls High proposed, and I quote:
It is suggested that in 38 A(1) the phrase which approval should not be
unreasonably withheld'' be inserted afterwithout the prior approval
from the employer’’.
Go to the Bill. In subclause 6 this has been done.
The second submission is that of Camps Bay High School, and I quote: Finally there are no criteria set for guiding the head of education in how to decide when he or she should allow a teacher to be paid more and when not.
Go to subclause 7 - all those criteria are there.
The school governing body of Stirling High School proposed:
If the state insists on including 38 A(1) in the Act, then the governing body believes that: ``An application from a school should not reasonably be refused, as the Act then provides for approval to be given.’’
As I referred to above, this has been included in the Bill.
The same school governing body goes on to say:
The Act must then include a section that imposes a responsibility on the education department concerned to respond within a reasonable period of time, failing which approval becomes automatic.
If you go to subclause 10 of this Bill, it addresses that. What does it say? It says: If the department does not respond within three months, this school governing body has the right to appeal to the MEC. No court. If you read this document, hon Doman, there is no reference to court and there is no official … because somebody said that. We are talking law. This is the Act. This is the Bill saying that in case of a problem, go to the MEC. [Interjections.]
Let me go to Fedsas. Fedsas says:
As public servants, educators should as a matter of law and principle be entitled to travel and subsistence and other allowances on exactly the same basis as all or any other public servant.
This is a submission. Subclause 5 of the Bill accommodates that exactly.
I’ve almost covered the whole Bill we are contending here, saying how we have responded positively to what they said. The only part where we said no, is where they were saying: ``Hands off our school governing bodies. Let our school governing bodies entice our teachers and give them more packages. Let us use the Educators’ Employment Act against the teachers because they have been enticed by the SGB.’’ Surely that cannot be correct? [Interjections.] It cannot be correct.
It was the school governing body who welcomed these teachers and gave them their terms of employment, terms that are negotiated in the labour negotiating chambers. If for whatever reason we say that the salaries and what have you of these teachers are low, we cannot negotiate that through the back door of school governing bodies who, on their own, say ``I’m going to give you more’’, after getting more. We are saying, and I repeat: The school governing bodies who want to give deserving teachers more have all right to do so. [Interjections.]
This is unfortunate, because this is so simple and straightforward. We are
all supposed to be embracing it, because we are balancing things here. We
say we are protecting the teacher, who is going to be given incentives and
then left alone. We are saying that the school governing body, the
government structure we have put in place there, must also … We cannot
say, Pay'', and thereafter say,Why did you pay?’’.
When we say, ``Do not prohibit,’’ we are only saying we are prohibiting in order to create the space for them to come before us, so that we can give them the necessary authority to do what they have to do. [Applause.]
Mr A M MPONTSHANE: Hon Deputy Speaker, let’s put aside the administrative jargon involved in this Bill and deal with the politics behind it. This debate, once more, forces us to reflect on our situation as a country in transition. The issues of policy formulation, policy implementation and delivery are central to this debate. Of course all of these are related to the whole question of transformation. The first critical theme we therefore have to understand is the nature of our own transformation.
South Africa’s process of negotiated revolution - because ours was a negotiated revolution - has had a very specific character. The first thing we have to acknowledge is that there was no vanquished enemy in this negotiated revolution. One of the characteristics of this negotiated revolution was the inheritance of state institutions. Unlike in the context of a conquest, we did not have the luxury of wiping out at will all those institutions which might have been used to discriminate against the rest of us, nor did we have the luxury of driving the defeated parties into the sea, so to speak.
Our negotiated revolution inherited very complex relationships and state institutions from the past, including Model C schools. These institutions are sometimes viewed by transformers with a certain degree of mistrust. We should, therefore, not underestimate the importance of building trust in these institutions.
Transformation by definition is a long and painful process, and if not managed properly, it may lead to very serious instances of decay in our education institutions. Already we are witnessing signs of education decay in various forms: high levels of indiscipline in our schools - that’s what we have; low morale among our teachers; lack of accountability at different levels of our system; and unwillingness of some teachers to engage in extracurricular activities.
In the midst of all this political decay, I want to argue for the encouragement of private initiatives from whatever quarter these may come, including initiatives from school governing bodies, such as the topping up of salaries of state-employed teachers. We all want educational excellence for our children and not controlled mediocrity. There is wisdom in the old adage that you cannot embrace the poor by tearing down the rich.
The curbing of the powers of governing bodies to top up salaries of state- employed teachers may not be a bad policy after all, but the timing is bad. This is time to build trust and not to sow cynicism regarding the Ministry’s policies. We should not at this time subject private initiatives which promote excellence in education to state bureaucrats who themselves still need to be transformed into effective “revocrats”, and not bureaucrats, in the service of the South African revolutionary state. We need “revocrats” in the service of the South African revolutionary stage. I repeat, we need “revocrats” and not bureaucrats. [Interjections.]
If I had time, I would explain this to you, Mr Minister. If there had been problems associated with the topping up of salaries by governing bodies, we sincerely believe that these should have been addressed in a less stringent manner in the form of general guidelines to school governing bodies. In a revolutionary state such as ours, rigid adherence to rules which are themselves rigid, such as labour laws, does not enhance service delivery. The character of our transition means that we must enhance the ability of all our segments of our society, including former Model C schools, for effective service delivery. I sincerely believe that we will not achieve this through the introduction of this amendment.
Of course, we are not so naive as to believe that transformation is a neutral process. It is by definition a purposeful process and as such it contains some elements of social engineering, and social engineering, everywhere in the world, has always been accompanied by central control. In such situations, especially situations of democratic centralism, plurality of parties may be tolerated but not the plurality of ideas. [Interjections.] Plurality of ideas - are you saying that I’m not capable of generating these ideas, Mr Minister?
Plurality of ideas is always regarded as the enemy of transformation and must, as such, be heavily censored. Criticism of governing policies - something which is quite acceptable in normal democracies - is sometimes treated as high treason. The brand of democracy which any political party holds is always revealed in its reaction to the ideas of its opposition. I’m waiting with bated breath for the hon Minister’s response to this afternoon’s debate.
In conclusion, part of the evidence to emerge from research into educational systems suggests that if parents are motivated and involved, if school principals are effective leaders, administrators and co-ordinators of the education process in schools, if teachers are well-trained, satisfied and motivated, and if a culture of learning and achievement exists among learners, then virtually any system will be educationally effective. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
It’s a pity, I was going to refer to you, hon Geldenhuys. [Laughter.]
Mrs M E OLCKERS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the New NP are supporting this amendment Bill, … [Interjections.] [Applause.] … although there are clauses and issues with which we are still not happy. Because the hon Minister agreed to more flexible amendments after discussions, and because the principle is already in the Schools Act of 1996, we decided we would support the refining and the clarification that this Bill provides on what is already in that Act as a fact, and also because incentives may still be given to teachers under certain circumstances. [Applause.]
As the Bill states, and I quote:
The main aim of the amendment is not to ban extra remuneration for educators employed by the state completely, but to curb the irresponsible manner in which it is done.
I will add, “sometimes” done.
The New NP is still unhappy that the committee did not have public hearings on these issues and, therefore, a totally balanced view from stakeholders was not interrogated by the committee. Written submissions cannot be substantially verbally interrogated. There is one aspect, inter alia, which the New NP will not be party to, and that is the issue of the autonomy and powers of school governing bodies. If we want well-run and well-managed schools, we should leave it to the SGBs to decide on how their schools should be run, how they raise funds and how they spend them for the good of the schools. That should be their decision because they are democratically elected and are the most closely involved.
If a provincial department feels unhappy about how the schools are run in the sense of management or governance, the department should intervene by having officials of the department assist and train those SGBs in proper management. However, those SGBs that are performing well should be acknowledged and be left to govern their schools as they see fit.
Furthermore, if an SGB wants to give any incentives, as it deems fit and affordable, to a dedicated teacher, the New NP feels that the onus should be on the SGB to request permission from the provincial Minister, and not on a specific teacher individually. This could be embarrassing to the teacher and should not happen to a teacher who is already a dedicated and an excellent teacher. After all, that is exactly why they are being thanked by the school community.
The New NP will, therefore, be supporting this Bill because the principle is already in the Schools Act, and this Bill assists in clarifying a vague clause as far as that is concerned. But we stand strong, and we always will, hon Doman, on the autonomy of SGBs. Centralisation in education is unacceptable because of the many different focuses of the South African landscape, and centralisation leads to being prescriptive and that again leads to a bigger bureaucracy, which becomes expensive and top-heavy.
The department should rather do everything in their power to assist principals with discipline in our schools and leave things that work well just like that. The complaint by principals about the unacceptable lack of discipline and the difficulty in getting it back in schools needs to be taken seriously, and assistance needs to be given. If human rights begin to become human abuse of other people and of an ordinary environment for the citizens, then we need to have another look at human rights. I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms C DUDLEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Minister, this Bill, admittedly a much-improved version of the original draft, continues the trend set in previous Education Laws Amendment Bills of reducing the relevance of school governing bodies in terms of their ability to represent parents, teachers and learners when it comes to issues of governance.
An amendment proposed by the ACDP would have adequately addressed a concern that a lack of transparency in the granting of benefits to teachers by SGBs results in hidden costs for parents. This amendment, which was ultimately dismissed, increased transparency between school governing bodies and the department and made provision for parents to be well-informed and able to influence such decisions without restricting the decision-making powers of the SGBs which, after all, represent parents, teachers and learners.
According to the Bill, as it stands now, the department has sole discretion as to whether or not state-paid teachers may receive extra benefits or remuneration paid by parents’ bodies. Instead of encouraging South Africans to embark on teaching careers and retaining the much-needed teaching skills, this Bill will further exacerbate serious shortages of specialised and experienced teachers in public schools and will have a detrimental effect on education.
Only newly qualified teachers, with little or no experience, will be able to afford to teach in public schools and, even then, the number of trainee teachers has been dropping steadily. Lack of incentives and career prospects will further discourage young South Africans from embarking on teaching careers and encourage teachers to move into other more lucrative professions. There’s nothing to stop Government from offering special incentives to excellent and specialised teachers to work in rural and previously underprivileged schools.
The need to improve education standards in many schools is of grave importance, but will not be achieved by shifting focus from what has not been accomplished to diminishing what has been accomplished in order to level the playing fields. It’s never helpful to cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
The ruling party and the department are of the opinion that because the state pays teachers, these teachers belong to them. Teachers are, of course, paid with taxpayers’ money and the state is only an administrator of the funds. Parents should have the final say in how their money is spent on their children,
While the ACDP is uncompromising in its support for accountability and transparency, we are concerned that the Government is making decisions that should not be theirs to make. We will, therefore, vote against the Bill, With reference to your earlier comment, hon Minister, I have a 29-year old son, 21-year old daughter, 19-year old son and a 9-year old son. I’m perhaps not as out of touch with reality as you might think. No matter how many young people sell themselves short or are trapped in an abusive situation, there is no excuse for adults to refuse them protection. It is shameful when legislation is aimed at assisting them in their self- destruction, and I refer here to your response in terms of the reduction of the age of consent in the sexual offences Bill. Thank you.
Dr C P MULDER: Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Minister, I despair of the education profession in South Africa. Do we have any idea of the current crisis in the education profession? I have been sitting in a school governing body for the past three years, Mr Minister. We deal with these things on a daily basis.
What message are we sending to the teachers and parents out there with a measure like this? Are we striving for excellence or are we striving for mediocrity? I want to put it to the hon Mayatula - the chairperson of this committee: You have just said in your speech that all the Bill says is that the school governing body should consult the employer. I challenge you to show me where it says that in this Bill. It does not stand in this Bill. There is nothing about ``consult’’. They must apply and get the approval of the department. Why are you telling Parliament that they should only consult the employer? [Interjections.] That’s not true, that’s not true! I despair of the profession if that is the way in which the committee deals with Bills like these.
Mevrou Adjunk-speaker, die vraag wat die departement en die Minister hulself moet afvra, is: [Madam Deputy Speaker, the question that the department and the Minister must ask themselves is:]
Why, in the first instance, did school governing bodies find it necessary to pay teachers extra - why? Because teachers are not paid enough in this country and because teachers are leaving the profession on a daily basis. Are the department and the Minister aware of that fact? What are you doing about that?
Now, the school governing bodies are getting involved in the situation. They try to rectify this and they are now being prevented in the process. It is no use saying that the Bill doesn’t prevent that. Technically and administratively, it becomes impossible to do that. So, what are we trying to achieve here? Mr Minister, with all due respect, reconsider this. Allow people who want to assist the education profession to do that. Don’t make it more difficult for them, make it easier.
Then, to my colleagues in the New NP I would like to say that I have warned you in the past that the ANC will not stop until they have destroyed you in total. Can’t you see what’s happening? Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Deputy Speaker and hon members, experience and rapid changes in the educational field necessitate regular amendments to existing laws, and the Bill we are discussing seeks to address just that.
The UCDP considers teaching as a labour of love. Our position is that those who engage in teaching should have passion for the job and not look forward to making wealth instantly. We, therefore, do not condone any additional payment to a teacher over and above the approved remuneration according to the teacher’s grading or salary scale. But, in the public interest, we support the proposed insertion of section 38A in Act 84 of 1996. For the record, this is in keeping with the Public Service Act of 1994.
Teachers took up teaching by choice with full knowledge of what they were letting themselves in for. Teachers, as professionals, should not be treated like waiters and waitresses who look forward to tips for doing their work well. We maintain that teachers should find fulfilment in their work knowing that the greatest of remunerations is yet to come. Whilst we subscribe to John Dewey’s naturalism, education, to us, has no room for laissez faire. Educators should comply with all set regulations.
Finally, we support the Bill in its entirety, Mr Minister, but we have difficulty in regard to retrospective legislation that has been used in the case of establishing the council known as Umalusi. The name has been used for a considerable time and a glossy report has been presented to Parliament in that good and appropriate name already. While the intent is good and welcome, the route followed in naming the institution borders on taking Parliament for granted. We call on the Minister not to use Parliament as a rubber stamp. There is no point in asking Parliament to legislate on something that is already in use and in the public domain. I thank you. [Applause.]
Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Deputy Speaker, education in a country that is a cross between the First World and Third World is problematic at the best of times.
Before assessing the core problem that is addressed by this Bill, it is necessary to affirm that good education remains the only way of accelerating development in a country that has inherited grave inequalities such as ours. Education should be of a reasonably good quality and be affordable and attainable for all the children of the country. There is also the problem of high competition from the commercial field which results in the brain-drain of well-qualified teachers.
The fact that the problem of paying inducement allowances to educators exists shows that, indeed, there is a problem. One solution suggested by the Bill is, namely, that the school governing bodies should be held accountable as they are the ones who lure educators away by promising them additional allowances and other types of incentives. This underhand operation is a form of corruption and impacts negatively on the whole educational system.
The poor schools cannot compete favourably with rich ones and, with time, the gap becomes bigger and the corruption that goes with it continues. It must be noted that the Bill does leave an open door for exceptional cases but the process must be transparent and negotiated openly.
One final word for the poor schools: Whilst we argue the case for the rich schools, the many schools in our country that are not improving and hardly have basic facilities stick out like a sore thumb and remind us where the major problem and challenges lie. With that terse reminder, the PAC will support the Bill. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the MF commends the education department in its efforts to correct the imbalances in the country’s education. With reference to the adjustments and provisions that this Bill makes, the MF has no objections to the increase in the number of educators’ representatives from two to three within the SA Qualifications Authority.
Noting that there are three main teachers’ unions, it is felt that that should balance representation. There are no objections to the reinstatement of a member more than the stipulated once. In light of his or her contribution regarding expertise and experience, his or her reinstatement may prove beneficial.
Provisions made in view of the salaries of educators are reasonable and supported. The MF feels it’s necessary that educational institutes make reports available to parents and guardians regarding money spent in paying educators’ salaries. That will allow for greater accountability and transparency.
Further, the MF supports the provisions made in light of educators who are employed by school governing bodies. The MF is sure that the provisions in this Bill will serve to take care of remuneration of educators adequately. Basically, provisions made in the employment of educators are reasonable and supported.
The MF is especially supportive of the renaming of the Council for General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance to Umalusi’’, which means “guardian of family assets”. That name is most appropriate for the institute that manages general, further education and training. An educated nation makes for a stronger nation. The MF wishes uMalusi every success in its endeavours and supports the Education Laws Amendment Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Madam Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that the new and eminent alliance has tuned both the IFP and the FF into the fight-back mode.
‘n Belangrike motief vir hierdie wetswysiging is dat die bestaande praktyk van addisionële vergoeding deur skoolbeheerliggame in stryd is met die Wet op die Indiensneming van Opvoeders en die Staatsdienswet, soos breedvoerig in die memorandum beskryf. Hier is egter weer ‘n geval van die regte diagnose, maar die verkeerde medisyne.
In stede daarvan om die betrokke bestaande wetgewing te wysig om voorsiening te maak vir hierdie uitnemende funksie van bestuursliggame om dit wettiglik en ordelik te doen met vasgestelde riglyne, word die kortpad gevat en hierdie bevoegdheid hul ontneem. Weer eens word die kind met die badwater uitgegooi.
Die Nasionale Aksie is ook nie oortuig deur die argument in die memorandum dat sodanige vergoeding ‘n regsplig op die departement plaas nie. Eerstens is ‘n bestuursliggaam ‘n regspersoon in eie reg en tweedens, hierdie wetswysiging verplaas juis die onus na werkgewers synde die departement.
Die beproefde merietestelsel word nie meer in die departement op onderwysers toegepas nie, uitnemendheid word nie meer beloon nie; nou word die wettige verteenwoordigers van die ouers die reg ontneem om dit te doen. Die toestemming wat die wetswysiging vereis sal ook tydskedules se begrotingsdoeleindes ernstig ontwrig. Ons sou maatreëls ondersteun het wat riglyne ook vir deursigtigheid uit die begrotingsproses daarstel. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[An important motive for this statutory amendment is that the existing practice of additional remuneration by school governing bodies is in conflict with the Employment of Educators Act and the Public Service Act, as comprehensively described in the memorandum. However, this is once again a case of the correct diagnosis, but the incorrect remedy.
Instead of amending the relevant existing legislation to make provision for this excellent function of governing bodies to be carried out lawfully and in an orderly fashion with specified guidelines, a short cut is taken and this power is taken away from them. Once again the baby is thrown out with the bath water.
The National Action is also not convinced by the argument in the memorandum that such remuneration places a legal obligation on the department. Firstly, a governing body is a judicial person in its own right and, secondly, this statutory amendment in fact transfers the onus to employers, namely, the department.
The proven merit system is no longer applied to teachers in the department, excellence is no longer rewarded; now the legal representatives of the parents are denied the right to do so. The permission required by the statutory amendment will also seriously disrupt the budgetary objectives of time schedules. We would have supported measures which established guidelines for transparency from the budget process as well.]
However, hon Minister, transparency and accountability will not be guaranteed by taking away the rights of SGBs; they can only be guaranteed by way of a transparent and accountable budget process.
Om egter die beslissingsreg na die departement te verskuif, ontneem die bestuursliggaam en die ouers die basiese reg en plig om iets addisioneel te offer vir kwaliteit onderrig aan hul kinders. Wil u die situasie bestendig, Minister, dat top onderwysers toenemend die professie verlaat en na London, na die privaatsektor te gaan, om dalk deur Kubane vervang te word? Die Minister behoort elke ekstra rand wat vrywillig deur ouers betaal word te verwelkom as ‘n onverdiende bonus en nie wetgewing in te stel om dit aan bande te lê nie.
Die NA sal teen hierdie wetgewing stem. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[However, to transfer the right of determination to the department denies the governing body and the parents the basic right and duty to offer extra for quality tuition for their children. Do you want to consolidate the situation, Minister, where top educators increasingly leave the profession to go to London, or the private sector, possibly to be replaced by Cubans? The Minister should welcome every extra rand voluntarily paid by parents as an undeserved bonus and not introduce legislation to curb this. The NA will vote against this legislation. I thank you.]
Ms M P MENTOR: Madam Deputy Speaker, I dedicate this debate to Eric Molobi who harnessed many of us as young people into the education movement and inculcated in us a passion for education as a tool for change, and many other comrades sitting here were together with Comrade Eric Molobi in doing so. I further thank Comrade Maxwell Komphela, Ntate Tolo, Mama Storey, Josephine Tshivhase, Thoko Didiza and Simeone Nkanunu, an officer in the Chief Whip’s office, for their continuing support and encouragement in my work.
Hon Olckers and hon Mulder, I will come back to you because you have raised some reasonable, but debatable issues in your inputs. Hon Doman, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Education dealt with you more than efficiently … [Interjections.]
AN HON MEMBER: Doman.
Ms M P MENTOR: Whoever you are - honourable; and I am sure the Minister will also deal with you efficiently, but one thing that I must say to you outright is that you cannot be and are not the representative of the poor. You represent the interests of the rich. [Interjections.] You have always done that. The last thing you said is about voting. The ANC is committed to changing the lives of the poor for the better on an ongoing basis and on a daily basis. This is not about the votes as it is for you.
At the beginning of 1990 we as the ANC, its alliance partners and the MDM formations took stock of the decades of the struggle for freedom. At that time, in 1990, we correctly said that the decade that was coming in was a decade in which we were going to deliver freedom. We were correct and we were spot-on because four years down the line as the ANC and its alliance partners and MDM formations, we delivered freedom and change to South Africans - black and white, rich and poor. At that time, in 1990 when we were saying, ``victory is certain’’, the same people who are opposed to change today, who are opposed to this Bill today, were still sitting on the other side. They were saying we were wrong and they unleashed brutality on us including the schooling system and learners. They did so by unleashing the then so-called black-on-black violence that even floated to the schools. They also unleashed the taxi violence which affected schooling detrimentally. Today you are sitting here again. You have just changed your modus operandi because we have ushered in freedom, we have stabilised South Africa politically, and we have stabilised the playing fields in terms of the provisioning of education. Now your modus operandi is one of gatekeeping, of making sure that you keep the poor on that side with regard to them receiving the best skills in relation to educators. [Applause.]
Today we are taking stock of 10 years of democracy and freedom. When we do so we quickly want to remind you, in case you have forgotten, of the many achievements we have achieved in education. We managed to integrate 11 racially divided and unevenly developed education systems into one meaningful, united system of education. We have put in place new and democratic frameworks, policies and legislation. We have put in place a new skills and development orientated curriculum. We have put in place a new qualifications framework and new quality assurance procedures and systems because you were saying when we integrate the departments we are necessarily bringing the standards down. We have put in place national norms and standards for education. The teacher-pupil ratios that are bringing in the factor of equality in education you are against even today. But even as we are taking stock of freedom and our achievements, you are saying: “What freedom?”. You are still asking that question and yet you are claiming to be representing the poor. I mean even a blind man can see that we have brought about change in the lives of the poor. [Interjections.] It is only you who continue to pretend that we have not brought any meaningful change to education.
In this Bill that we support as the ANC, we are saying to you that we will refuse and we will continue to refuse, as the ANC, to ensure that only those who are rich can afford that their children can have the best highly skilled and highly paid educators. We are defending the right of the children of the poor to have equal access to highly-skilled educators, because if we do not defend that right the children of the rich in this country, who will be going to those schools that we say must give the SGBs thereof the right to appoint and pay extra as they wish, will continue to have an edge in terms of knowledge and an edge in terms of skills over the children of the poor and that is not acceptable. [Applause.] We want the children of the poor in this country to have an edge and to succeed in life just like the children of those who have and who can afford it. It is the responsibility of the state to intervene and to make sure that in terms of national skills transfer and in terms of human resource capital distribution the children of the poorest of the poor, whether they are in rural areas or in semirural areas, in urban areas or in peri-urban areas, whether their parents have money or not, also have highly-skilled educators.
If we follow the arguments of those who are opposing this Bill the net effect of doing what you say we must do would be that the public schools will be stripped of these highly-skilled educators. They will be teaching only in pockets of schools that have money and that is not acceptable. We will not allow that to happen. We have a responsibility as a state to make sure that the norms and standards … in fact what you are proposing will also have another effect of ensuring that the curriculum is skewed in favour of those who have money and whose children attend schools where school fees can be R10 000 or R11 000.
If we do not intervene as the state the children of the poor will continue to be given housecraft, carpentry and lessons in obedience as was the status quo under apartheid. We are refusing when we vote for this Bill. We are saying that we are in favour of the poor, that we will make sure that we use this power that is vested in us as the state to make sure that we protect the children of the poor, and we will make sure that they access quality education for all just like the children of the rich and the children of those who can afford to pay educators more.
Coming back to you hon Olckers, you are arguing for autonomy and independence of SGBs and you are saying the department must play a role of discipline which to me is “kragdadigheid” [forcefulness]. [Interjections.] If we say the only role that the state can play is a disciplinary one, we as the ANC refuse to accept that our schools will be a means of federalism and a splintered approach to education. We have a responsibility to ensure that we set national standards, that we monitor nationally and that we put in place uniform standards for education. We cannot allow each and every one of these many SGBs depending on whether they have money or not to do as they please and to retain power for themselves.
Lastly, Madam Olckers all your arguments were reasonable and I think that is the reason you see fit to also defend the poor and vote in favour of this Bill. Hon Doman … [Interjections.]
HON MEMBERS: Doman.
Ms M P MENTOR: Can you pronounce my name? You are saying that we must retain the power and rights of the SGBs who happen in many cases to be the select few. We are saying to you in return that we will restore and retain the power and the rights to and for the poor, and not the select few who are the elite and who happen to make it onto the SGBs. And this is not all about voting. It is about ensuring that there is even distribution of the human resource capital, that the children of the poor get what they should be getting which is what the children of the rich are getting in this country. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Chairperson, hon members, I come to speak to you
- Mr Mpontshane asked me to respond to his intervention - with a feeling of exhilaration on the one hand, and extreme depression on the other. The exhilaration is the result of listening to the chairperson of the portfolio committee coming out of his corner like a light-heavyweight champion. For the first time in six years, he has come out pugnaciously, vibrantly, in a lively fashion, and anticipated so much of the things I wanted to say. The hon Mayatula has, in fact, done that. [Interjections.]
And then of course, in the best tradition of debate, the hon Mentor - the name ``Mentor’’ is very appropriate, by the way - has replied in the debate. I regret to say that my depression is that there will be those who will never listen to anything you say. [Interjections.]
I spent one hour with the hon Doman. Look … [Interjections] … if the jackals would listen instead of pecking away. [Laughter.] I spent one hour with the hon Doman going through the Bill systematically, privately. [Interjections.] Now please! I think this side is skirmishing. I’ll speak to the middle. [Interjections.] No! This was a private meeting at his request. Ministers don’t have private meetings, and particularly with those people who are confused about the Bill. He had not read the Bill properly because I had to draw his attention to the fact that the Bill won’t come into force until next year to give schools time to adjust, because he’d asked me if we could have a postponement of the Bill. But then, of course, when we look at the Bill, it is there.
The hon Doman makes me depressed for the simple reason that his side has never supported, since 1994, a single piece of legislation which is progressive, which meets the moment of the time and the day. [Applause.] They claim the school governing body concept. The school governing body concept came from the ANC, and it was fathered and supported by Blade Nzimande through Parliament, as the transfer of power and democracy to localism. [Interjections.] That is not rubbish; you were not even a boy by then, in 1994. [Applause.] You were not around. This concept, I can tell you, is our position and it is to enhance the school governing body and, when the report of the school governing bodies comes out, to strengthen the school governing body.
So, please, no one is taking power away from the school governing body because the school governing body doesn’t have the power at present. What we are trying to do, and I think this is very important, is to provide some regulation, as I said in my speech, in a position which is impossible because we are paying additional amounts to public servants where other public servants are not allowed to be paid.
The hon Mr Doman was also economical with the truth. It’s not true to say that you must go to court to resolve the matter. He looks like a lugubrious minister. He might be a lugubrious lawyer for all I know, but he would know that under the Administration of Justice Act, the administrative decisions have to be taken reasonably quickly. It says so, ``within reasonable time’’. Of course, it’s bad faith on the part of any public authority, an MEC or head of a department, to take an unreasonable amount of time.
I did say that we will monitor the legislation if, in fact, it is not working. [Interjections.] No, no, it’s there in the record of Hansard. We will monitor it. So don’t be economical with the truth.
In the same way, hon Aucamp - I like your style, by the way, but not the content - you cannot have two employers. Under the contract of employment, there is an employer, which is the province, and the individual teacher. If you, in fact, try to act in addition to that, then there is a supplementary employer. Legally it’s not possible to have a supplementary employer. Therefore what we are saying is that there must be some machinery acting quickly to do that.
The last point I’ll make on this is that there is a clear division in this House between privilege and fairness, between those who speak for a minority, I must say. In the last opinion poll, more than a 5% increase from 1994 said that there was a considerable improvement in education. That is the large majority of people. We speak for a large majority of people. [Interjections.] No, no, you don’t know.
You don’t even have the insight into the caucus of the ANC. You don’t even have an insight into rural schools or township schools. [Interjections.] I can tell you, I’ll patronise you all the time. I like patronising you, so I will continue patronising you. Therefore I will speak on the basis that there is a real need to regulate this. Mr Aucamp, the school governing body then is not being abolished.
As for the hon Mr Mpontshane, I must react to his mumbo-jumbo about trust, and trust and development, and all that. Are you saying that your constituency in Ingwavuma does not need the so-called excellent teacher, because they cannot pay him or her more than the state pays? Are you really saying that? Should you accept their fate and sit down?
Let me end all the debate by reading a very moving article by Lindiwe Khuzwayo in the Star of 29 May. She looks at the schools with great privilege and facilities and says: ``… the people who work in advantaged schools are being rewarded, not so much for what they do, as for where they work. The elements are all there … ‘’ for all wonderful facilities. And, since the hon Doman now suddenly acquires an insight to speak for the poor and underprivileged schools, I’ll quote further:
Given all this, why on earth would these teaching stars'' not shine? If
you took many of thosehardworking’’, perk-getting stars and placed
them at a school in a squatter camp, where children come not having seen
a slice of bread, a different story would emerge.
Yet the people who currently work under these conditions don’t complain, they plod along quietly and occasionally produce stunning results. And they work overtime. I know teachers in township schools who teach on Sundays.
Yes, on Sundays, never mind Saturdays. But they don’t get any perks. In fact, many of them do not even know that other teachers receive perks.
Who is going to recognise these teachers and reward them?
I can understand Asmal’s reasoning about the perks. What they are doing is perpetuating, not only inequalities in our educational system, but myths as well.
She concludes:
The argument that if perks are stopped teachers will be poached by private schools is laughable. If this were the case there would be no longer any teachers in excellent township schools, where teachers perform what can only be described as miracles.
I ask for the case that salutes the miraculous. Support those who go out of their way, whether they are black or white. But don’t always insist that those privileges that exist must be perpetuated, unregulated by law. To get rid of this myth, with due respect to the hon Mentor, it is not up to the school governing body to decide on this. It is the principal and the chairperson of the governing body who decide on this. We have evidence of that.
Annual salaries do not include all the perquisites by name. In fact, these are quiet arrangements made with teachers themselves, the unions will tell you. Teachers will tell you that there is a great deal of resentment because they don’t know the conditions under which, in fact, these perquisites are given. What we are saying is that additional work is open work; additional capacity-building is open. We ask you therefore to support this because we cannot tolerate a situation where there are two school systems within one school. No principal is capable of determining, for example, performance in the way, in fact, that educational experts do. No chairman of a governing body can say this teacher is performing beyond any recognition, beyond any situation. We are now putting in a performance grading system where teachers will receive that.
Hon Mulder, it’s a myth about teachers deserting. There are more and more people joining the faculties of education. What have we done? We are offering to poor Afrikaners R100 million in the National Financial Aid Scheme to do what you said, to get teachers into the system. We are also now carrying out, for the first time, a survey of tuberculosis, other diseases and HIV as they affect teachers. We are doing it systematically.
Mr Doman may never appear on the front page of the Financial Mail. I don’t
care about appearing on their front page because, I can tell you, they have
their own agenda. They are speaking to businesses, as he says, and not to
anybody else. I speak for the great unwashed'', as George Orwell said.
And forthe great unwashed’’, we persevere with all the great reforms
that the hon Mentor has mentioned. We persevere because somebody has to
articulate their needs. And we believe, ourselves, that we speak for the
large majority of people in saying there should be no privileges on the one
hand and underdevelopment on the other. I commend this Bill to you. Thank
you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
House divided:
AYES - 184: Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Bakker, D M; Baloyi, S F; Benjamin, J; Bloem, D V; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Booi, M S; Botha, N G W; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Cassim, M F; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Khota, F I; Cindi, N V; Cronin, J P; Daniels, N; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Douglas, B M; Durand, J; Dyani, M M Z; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Frolick, C T; Geldenhuys, B L; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Gogotya, N J; Goosen, A D; Greyling, C H F; Hogan, B A; Holomisa, S P; Jassat, E E; Jeebodh, T; Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kati, J Z; Kgwele, L M; Komphela, B M; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekota, M G P; Lishivha, T E; Lockey, D; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Magashule, E S; Magazi, M N; Magubane, N E; Mahlangu-Nkabinde, G L; Mahlawe, N; Mahomed, F; Maine, M S; Makasi, X C; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Malumise, M M; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, M A; Mbadi, L M; Mbombo, N D; Mdladlana, M M S; Mentor, M P; Meruti, V; Mfundisi, I S; Mkono, D G; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Modisenyane, L J; Mogoba, M S; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Moloi, J; Mongwaketse, S J; Moropa, R M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mtsweni, N S; Mutsila, I; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncinane, I Z; 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; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nkabinde, N C; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Nqodi, S B; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, J T; Ntuli, M B; Nwamitwa- Shilubana, T L P; Odendaal, W A; Olckers, M E; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, M N; Pahad, E G; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Phohlela, S; Pieterse, R D; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodike, M N; Ramotsamai, C M P; Ripinga, S S; Robertsen, M O; Routledge, N C; Saloojee, E (Cassim); Schneeman, G D; Schoeman, R S; Seeco, M A; Sekgobela, P S; September, R K; Sibande, M P; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sisulu, L N; Sithole, P; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sosibo, J E; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van Wyk, A; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Xingwana, L M T; Zondo, R P.
NOES - 55: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Bell, B G; Biyela, B P; Blaas, A; Borman, G M; Bruce, N S; Camerer, S M; Da Camara, M L; Delport, J T; Doman, W P; Dudley, C; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Ferreira, E T; Gibson, D H M; Green, L M; Hlengwa, M W; Kalyan, S V; Koornhof, N J van R; Le Roux, J W; Lee, T D; Lowe, C M; Maluleke, D K; Mbuyazi, L R; Middleton, N S; Millin, T E; Moorcroft, E K; Morkel, C M; Mpontshane, A M; Mulder, C P; Nel, A H; Ngema, M V; Ngubane, H; Ntuli, R S; Opperman, S E; Pretorius, I J; Redcliffe, C R; Roopnarain, U; Schalkwyk, P J; Selfe, J; Seremane, W J; Sibiya, M S M; Smuts, M; Southgate, R M; Steele, M H; Swart, S N; Theron, J L; Van Deventer, F J; Vezi, T E; Vos, S C; Woods, G G; Xulu, M; Zulu, N E.
Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read a second time.
CONSIDERATION OF FIRST REPORT OF JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE
Mr N M NENE: Chairperson and hon members, today we consider the First Report of the Joint Budget Committee that was tabled on 18 June 2003. The theme for our discussion is the role of the state Budget in pushing back the frontiers of poverty. The establishment of the Joint Budget Committee was the culmination of extensive work, which was done by the budget reform task team with the sole purpose of giving Parliament the platform to engage with the Budget process.
Key among the objectives of the committee is giving effect to the central question of participatory budgeting and improved quality of spending, with a particular focus on accountability, transparency and good governance. The Budget, being the instrument of expressing Government policy, should respond to the prevailing material conditions and challenges in our country. The ANC made a commitment at its inception to eradicate poverty and dispossession when it was formed in 1912 and it has been dedicated to this course to this day. Over the years we have defined the strategic objective of the national democratic revolution as the creation of a united, nonracial, nonsexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa.
The Budget reform measures have shifted the purpose of the Budget from its narrow focus on prudent stewardship to embrace the development of sustainable programmes to deliver the quality services that will push back the frontiers of poverty, grow the economy …
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon Nene. Order! Hon members, can we have your attention please. Order! Order, hon members! Please continue, hon Nene.
Mr N M NENE: Chairperson, I was saying that the Budget reform measures have shifted the purpose of the Budget from its narrow focus on prudent stewardship to embrace the development of sustainable programmes to deliver the quality services that will push back the frontiers of poverty, grow the economy and also create an environment for employment.
We have emerged from a past that kept the Budget in the purview of a select few, mainly the bureaucrats, to determine and implement that which they thought would be in the best interests of society. This resulted in the skewed distribution of income, huge budget deficits and an economy with negative growth. It took the ANC and its policies to turn this situation around, and indeed major strides have been made to produce a Budget that is both an effective and efficient instrument of policy that recognises the developmental character of our state.
When this committee was established it was tasked, through its terms of reference, with considering the proposed allocations in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and the appropriation Bill and whether these allocations were in broad keeping with Government policy directions. Secondly, it was tasked with considering the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, when tabled, and reporting to Parliament. Thirdly, it was tasked with making proposals regarding the processes Parliament should follow with regard to its role in the development of budgets in accordance with constitutional requirements. Lastly, it was tasked with monitoring the monthly published actual revenue and expenditure per department, to ascertain whether these were in line with budget projections, and to report quarterly, as we are doing today.
The period for which we are reporting is the last quarter of 2002-03 which ended in March 2003. The other members of the committee are going to deal with specific cluster expenditure trends and their impact on pushing back the frontiers of poverty.
Departmental expenditure, according to the report, showed a gradual increase in the last quarter, with some dramatic fluctuations and pronounced increased expenditure in the month of March 2003. This situation raises questions of possible fiscal dumping - and I repeat, possible fiscal dumping - and the committee is monitoring the situation more closely this time and awaits explanations and rigorous engagement by committees as annual reports are being tabled.
Allow me to take this opportunity to urge all committees to engage with their respective departments as they table these annual reports. The tabling of these reports should not be regarded as one of those routine processes that this House should receive and discard, as the reports provide committees with additional tools to hold departments accountable.
We have a responsibility as public representatives to safeguard this democracy with its institutions, as laid down in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is our duty to accelerate the pace of implementing the accountability system of better performance in service delivery and financial management by fully and properly implementing the management and performance reforms, like the Public Finance Management Act, the Senior Management Service, and, recently, the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act.
Ensuring civil-society participation at all levels is also our responsibility. We must ensure that at the local level there is adequate participation of our society in the formulation of the IDPs. At the provincial level we must ensure that society participates in public hearings. At the national level we should also ensure that society participates in public hearings and engages with the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework.
In the report the committee makes proposals which we believe require the commitment of all of us working together, with the common objective of pushing back the frontiers of poverty. The committee is of the view that key among these recommendations is that of capacity-building in financial management procedures for departments, especially regarding the Public Finance Management Act, in order to ensure compliance with this Act. The committee is also convinced that capacity-building for members in financial oversight is of the utmost importance. Technical and research support for the committee is also identified as very crucial in order to enable the committee and its members to fulfil their obligation optimally.
In the Estimate of Expenditure, departments set themselves measurable objectives which they are expected to achieve. The committee takes these very seriously and expects the departments to adhere to them religiously and to report timeously on their outputs.
In terms of the committee having to make proposals regarding the processes that Parliament should follow with regard to its role in the developing of budgets in accordance with constitutional requirements, the committee notes with comfort that the Joint Rules Committee has recognised the need for Parliament to give effect to section 77(2) of the Constitution. The committee is also pursuing the matter with the caution it requires, such that it feeds into the overall objective of oversight and influencing of the Budget process.
In our workshop the committee was presented with scenarios of countries that have amendment powers and those that do not. We were convinced that even though the amendment powers are desirable, sequencing and implementing our terms of reference is of utmost importance. Once the draft Bill is ready, the committee will have hearings that will take on board the views of other stakeholders, more particularly civil society and the labour movement. What emerged is that even those countries that had these powers hardly used them. If they did, it would be as a last resort.
Allow me to thank all members of the committee for their dedication and valuable contributions in shaping this report. At no stage did we experience party-political posturing and unnecessary disagreements. We hope that this spirit prevails both in this debate and as we all work towards a nonracist, nonsexist and democratic Budget process and push back the frontiers of poverty.
My appreciation also goes to the National Treasury, to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Finance for their continued support, and to all the support staff, including the research unit, for their hard work in the past few months. I trust that they will continue to support this worthy course. I present this report of the Joint Budget Committee to this House and trust that it will form the basis for our reports, our debates and further budgetary processes. I also invite members to take some time to peruse and engage our second report, which has already appeared in the ATC of 11 September 2003. I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Mr J L THERON: Hon Chairperson, the topic of my speech today is: ``Please, Get the Show on the Road’’. Some of the ANC Government’s most serious problems are: too slow economic growth, … [Interjections.] Please listen! Some of the ANC Government’s most serious problems are too slow economic growth, very high unemployment and growing poverty. [Interjections.] You want to push back the frontiers of poverty, but there is growing poverty.
If we analyse the First Report of the Joint Budget Committee, the JBC, very carefully, some of the reasons for these problems become evident. Today, I want to concentrate on two areas in the report to show clearly where some of the problems of the ANC Government lie. I want to comment on the expenditure of the Department of Public Enterprises, the DPE, and secondly, on the expenditure of the provinces. If you analyse the report properly it will become clear that these are two of the pertinent issues.
Firstly, I want to look at the Department of Public Enterprises, or the DPE. In the report the three months under review are January, February and March 2003. If we look at the tables for the least total budget expenditure for January, the Department of Public Enterprises spent the second least, with only 54,8% of its budget spent and 45,92% still unspent. For February, which is the second last month of the financial year, the Department of Public Enterprises again spent the second least, with only 68,12% of the budget spent, and 31,88% of the total budget still unspent. For March, the last month of the financial year, the Department of Public Enterprises was the department with the lowest total budget expenditure, with 89,64% spent, and 10,09% unspent.
The question is: Is this an example of fiscal dumping, yes or no? From this, it is already clear that there are capacity problems at the Department of Public Enterprises because it is the worst performer on expenditure for the year 2003-04.
But to go one step further, and I really think here some explanation is necessary, if you look at the Second Report of the Joint Budget Committee, the JBC, to which the chairperson referred, and which is already published, the Department of Public Enterprises only got R60 million in the annual budget for the year 2003-04, while it got R249 million in the revised estimates for the year 2002-03. This 2003-04 amount is only 25% of what the department got in 2002-03. And then, suddenly, because of this very low budget allocation for 2003-04, the department is shown as the second highest on departmental expenditure for April 2003-04. We know that there are extra allocations that have been announced such as the R80 billion upgrade for Spoornet and the infrastructure upgrade of the ports; but, something is wrong here.
Under the lowest budget expenditure in May 2003-04, again, there was actually negative spending by the department by -11,27%. It is stated in the report that the National Treasury will provide the JBC with a formal response, clarifying the negative expenditure reflected by the department. We in the JBC will have to determine if this is window-dressing or what is going on in the department. The department should be one of the first departments to appear before this committee.
Secondly, regarding the expenditure by the provinces after nine years of
ANC rule in South Africa, I want to quote from the First Report of the
Joint Budget Committee on the expenditure of the provinces. First quote:
All provinces underspent''; second quote: All provinces underspent
their capital budgets by an average of 15,70%’’; and further to the first
quote: ``A conclusion that may be drawn from the above pattern is that
capacity problems still exist in the provinces such as the Eastern Cape to
spend their capital budgets’’.
To summarise the situation on the two areas that I have illustrated, namely, the Department of Public Enterprises and the provinces, there surely seem to be underspending problems. Some of the reasons for this that the First Report of the Joint Budget Committee mentions, are capacity problems, flow of information and financial oversight.
We are currently on the verge of an economic upswing. If the Government does not do something soon on this underspending issue, we will not see the desired economic growth that we urgently need. If the necessary infrastructure investment and job creation are not facilitated by the Government soon, we will definitely miss the fruits of the new, international economic growth phase.
I seriously hope that the upcoming general election in 2004 will not prohibit the Government from doing the necessary investment, job creation and poverty alleviation in order to enhance the economic growth in South Africa. The time for window-dressing is surely over.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon member!
Mr J L THERON: Implementation should now be a priority.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order!
Mr J L THERON: And, it is more than high time to get the show on the road. I thank you. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Theron, could you return to the podium.
I know you were very busy delivering your speech, but you ignored calls from the Chair to inform you that your time had expired. We will allow it this time but next time we expect you to apologise to the Chair.
Mr J L THERON: Thank you, Chairperson.
Dr G G WOODS: Chairperson, we would like to begin by just acknowledging the very important role played by our chairperson, the hon Nene, together with his co-chairperson from the NCOP. We find the approach very purposeful at a very difficult time, being a new committee in its formative and fledging stage. We have every confidence that the committee is going to grow in authority and in the role that we are planning for it.
I can’t quite place the same compliment to the report before us. I think the report is somewhat lacking in substance and leads me to ask why we are actually debating the report today. We can’t blame the Joint Budget Committee, however, for the report and its lack of substance of which I accused it. Simply, the information we require at this stage to do the type of monitoring that is necessary is just not available. We rely on the information that comes mostly from National Treasury and Government departments. And, as I would recall, the Public Finance Management Act, PFMA, would actually demand that, in due course, additional information be forthcoming to Parliament and to the Joint Budget Committee - information that will enable us to do what we need to do. I think that some information largely relates to annual reporting necessary for both management within the departments and Government institutions, as well as to the accountability oversight in which we are interested.
On the report, I think that there is not too much value in referring to trends which, firstly, are very general - trends of how much one department spends in total, as opposed to programmes. There is not much happening in comparing quarter by quarter or month by month of these very general gross amounts. And, here we are comparing actual with actual because this, in a way, ignores any cyclical or seasonal spending trends in departments. Departments don’t simply divide their budgets by 12 and spend in that exact pattern. The report ignores any service delivery plan, which is especially true of the capital expenditure side. It ignores any other manner of consideration that can arise in the reality of any department in its budget year. Of course, in total, the figures we are working with ignore the Budget almost altogether, when comparing actual with actual. As a Budget committee, of course, in time it’s going to be important that we only monitor and compare actual spending to budgeted spending for a particular period.
But, on the positive side, I think, as other speakers have pointed out, especially the chairperson, the committee is demonstrating a sense of its future role and continuing to define its mandate which would make it more and more useful to Parliament as an oversight instrument of the very important areas of revenue and expenditure across Government.
I think that our challenge in the main, from our view, exists in two areas. And this takes us perhaps beyond the recommendations that are in our first report, and indeed in our second report which came out last week. The two areas will, firstly, be how the Budget committee ultimately gets involved in the Budget-making process and, of course, these debates have gone on for many, many years between, I think, initially the Portfolio Committee on Finance and the Ministry.
The key issue here is going to remain the powers that the Constitution says Parliament should have. And, in this case, I think we shall ultimately go to the Budget committee regarding the powers to amend money Bills and here we are talking about the Budget. On one hand, we can be quite frustrated that the National Treasury hasn’t been forthcoming with these amendments that made one aborted attempt some years back, as we might remember. But we still sit some five or six years after the adoption of our Constitution, if not longer, without these powers which we should have.
But one is not without sympathy for the Minister. I think it’s a very difficult call for him to make as to how much intervention he feels might disrupt the very involved process which he undertakes every year with all sorts of departments and other bodies. I think it might be something that the Budget committee needs to look at regarding how we can be proactive and forthcoming on how we believe an amending money Bill could be framed to give us the type of powers that we want and, from that point, take the initiative to engage with the Minister.
The second area is the one which we have been discussing and which this report covers: how we monitor the Budget and how it’s managed. I have already referred to information which I’m sure was intended by the PFMA. That really is information which should originate from policy and which should get interpreted through a strategic planning exercise that incorporates timing for the delivery plan so that when we bring our Budget into being, it must be costed and planned month by month against what’s going to be delivered. We would then know that that’s the plan and that’s what we monitor against when we get the monthly figures. And, of course, where there are differences and variations we would expect the departments to automatically give us adequate explanations. I think that that would add a lot of purpose and usefulness to this exercise which we have attempted because, after all, we can only monitor against that which has been planned and agreed to.
But, in conclusion, I do acknowledge that the committee has done the best they can, with the help of some able researchers and with the information to produce the report they have; and we certainly support it. Thank you.
Mr G D SCHNEEMANN: Chairperson, the First Report of the Joint Budget Committee before us today is significant, as the committee came into being in October last year. Today we debate the first quarterly report on the departmental expenditure trends for January to March 2003. One of the tasks of the Joint Budget Committee is to monitor on a regular basis, monthly published actual revenue and expenditure per department and to ascertain whether they are in line with Budget projections and to prepare quarterly reports.
The report before us provides us with a picture of the expenditure patterns of each Budget Vote. Whilst it is important for the Joint Budget Committee to monitor figures, it is equally important to look beyond these figures and to establish whether the budgets of the departments are used effectively and efficiently to implement the policies of the ANC-led Government.
Furthermore, to ensure that the Budget is positively impacting on the lives of the people of South Africa and that the frontiers of poverty are being pushed back, the Joint Budget Committee and the respective portfolio committees need to work closely together to ensure that the expenditure of line departments are in line with the measurable objectives which are indicated in the Estimates of National Expenditure.
Where necessary, visits should be undertaken to provinces to understand the successes and challenges in ensuring that expenditure takes place efficiently and effectively. During the three-month period covered by this report, the Department of Housing continued to improve the living conditions of South Africans. It continues to deliver new homes to those in our country who were both denied access to and the right to own their own homes under apartheid.
The Department of Housing has translated the Bill of Rights from words into action which has resulted in millions of people now being housed and having access to adequate housing. Whilst the housing delivery programme has and continues to improve the living standards of people throughout the country, we have to ensure that the homes that are delivered are of good quality and that they provide value for the money spent.
The Department of Housing has placed significant emphasis on the delivery of a quality product, together with quantity, rather than just on quantity alone. The results of this are being seen as the quality of construction and the final products are being improved. The Portfolio Committee on Housing has conducted oversight visits to all of the nine provinces and one of the concerns has been that some contractors build homes that are of an inferior quality.
To eradicate such practices, the National Home Builders Registration Council has been given the responsibility of inspecting the construction of each house built. In instances where inferior construction methods were used, the contractor will be required to rectify this before hand-over to the beneficiary. The inspection of the subsidy homes by the NHBRC will assist in ensuring the delivery of quality homes and that money spent is well spent.
Through the housing delivery programme millions of people have gained access to running water, sanitation and electricity. To service these new communities, we have witnessed the building of new clinics, schools, police stations, courts, community centres and sport facilities to name but just a few. This is a clear and visible indication that the expenditure of Government is improving the lives of its citizens.
The Budget is playing an important role in the realisation of the social rights which are espoused in the Bill of Rights. Just this past weekend, while I was interacting with residents in Mohlakeng on the West Rand in Gauteng, each person I spoke to, without hesitation, stated that their lives had positively changed since the ANC came to power in 1994. They all acknowledged that significant progress had been made and that the ANC should continue with its work of transforming the country.
Throughout the country, roads are being repaired and built. Just a few weeks ago, I travelled through the former Transkei area in the Eastern Cape. The N2 highway is being resurfaced and rebuilt in parts. The Kei Cuttings Pass is now a safe road for motorists. But what struck me most was that the last time I had driven through this area, back in 1989, the area was in total darkness. Now the entire area has been transformed through the installation of electricity.
The 13 rural development and eight urban renewal nodes previously announced by Government are being provided with the necessary infrastructure that will facilitate the economic regeneration of these areas. In Mount Ayliff, new roads are being constructed, transport facilities are being provided and a goat-processing centre is under construction, which will provide much- needed employment opportunities for the local communities.
In Alexandra, in Gauteng, the entire area is under reconstruction, with new housing, clinics, a new police station and new infrastructure such as roads, water and sanitation being provided and, where necessary, upgraded. Again these are clear and visible indications that the expenditure of Government is impacting on society through the development of the rural and urban nodes.
The new port being built at Coega, the expansion of our airports and the upgrading of railway stations, all form part of Government’s commitment to expand existing, and where necessary, invest in new infrastructure. There is no doubt that the Budget and expenditure thereof are attaining the desired results of improving the quality of life of its citizens, stimulating economic growth and reducing poverty. In a short nine years the face of the country has been changed; and despite the significant gains made we still need to do more. It is, therefore, imperative that we continue to monitor and improve the expenditure of Budget allocations.
The role of the Joint Budget Committee and that of portfolio committees is to ensure that this continues to take place - to hold departments accountable for what they spend and deliver, and to ensure that the priorities and policies of Government are implemented.
In conclusion, I would like to urge all South Africans to renew the mandate that they gave to the ANC in 1994 and in 1999. Next year we, as a country, have a choice to make. Either we can choose to undo the gains that we have made over the past nine years - and a vote for the DA will do just that - or we can choose to continue along the road of transforming our country, improving the lives of all the people of South Africa, stimulating economic growth, reducing poverty, and creating a country we can be proud of. A vote for the ANC will ensure that this continues to happen.
I would also like to urge those South Africans who are being confused by the noises and sabre-rattling of the DA to join the millions of South Africans next year who will place their mark next to that of the ANC because they believe in and want a Government that cares for them, and that delivers on its promises. I thank you.
Dr W A ODENDAAL: Geagte Voorsitter, ek verwys na die kritiek wat die agb Wikus Theron gerig het tot die Departement van Openbare Ondernemings, dat hulle in een maand geweldige groot bedrae bestee het. Ek wil graag vir hom daarop wys dat dié departement ‘n klein departement is en eintlik maar ‘n tussenganger is om die geld te ontvang wat deur middel van privatisering verkry word. Daardie geld word dan in een groot bedrag oorbetaal aan die fiskus. En ek dink die bedrag waarna hy verwys, is die bedrag wat deur die notering van Telkom op die aandelebeurs verkry is en toe in ‘n enkele bedrag oorbetaal is aan die fiskus om elders aangewend te word. Soos ek, dink ek hy moet ook maar ‘n bietjie versigtig wees dat ons nie te vinnig kritiseer voor ons nie seker is waarvan ons praat nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Dr W A ODENDAAL: Hon Chairperson, I refer to the criticism the hon Wikus Theron directed at the Department of Public Works, that they spent enormous amounts in one month. I would like to point out to him that this department is a small one and is only a go-between which receives money obtained through privatisation. That money is then transferred in one big amount to the Treasury. And I think the amount he referred to was the amount obtained through the listing of Telkom on the stock exchange, which was then transferred in a single amount to the Treasury to be used elsewhere. Like me, I think he should be careful not to criticise too quickly before we are are certain of what we are talking about.]
Chairperson, seeing that this debate is the first of the proceedings of the Joint Budget Committee, one can expect that it will be somewhat philosophical in nature. That is exactly what has happened so far. The committee was set up with the aim of involving Parliament more closely in the budgeting process.
The Bill leading to the formation of this committee states specifically that the JBC itself should make proposals regarding the process Parliament should follow with regard to its role in developing budgets in accordance with constitutional requirements.
The primary task of the JBC is to consider proposed allocations in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, as well as the Appropriation Bill and whether these allocations are broadly in keeping with the policy directions of Government, and to conduct hearings on the document issued in connection with. It should also, on a regular basis, monitor monthly, published actual revenue and expenditure per department and per province.
The formation of this committee enables Parliament to intervene in the Budget but not to duplicate or try to take over the role of the executive. The JBC is a joint committee consisting of members of both the National Assembly and the National Council Of Provinces. The role of the NCOP component in the JBC is to represent the unique interests of the provinces and not to mirror or duplicate the National Assembly process.
The finding of this First Report of the JBC, mainly that the Free State province is a serious and consistent underspender on both its capital and current budgets, points in the direction of a lack of capacity within this province. It is the task of the NCOP component of the JBC to deal with this problem.
The JBC should also be careful not to try to hijack the role of the portfolio committees or the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. A finding in one of the first draft reports of the JBC, namely, that Statistics SA neither budgeted for conducting the October Household Survey for 2002, which was needed by Government, nor for obtaining mortality statistics required by the President points to sloppy financial management within this department.
The issue was dealt with in the correct way. The JBC raised the alarm but did not try to take over the task of Scopa, which is to watchdog public accounts. When Scopa finalises its report on the investigation into the financial management of Stats SA, the report should not be dealt with by the JBC but by the Portfolio Committee on Finance, which is responsible for overseeing Stats SA. So, the JBC is still finding its way in dealing with a more effective involvement of Parliament in the budgetary process.
I believe, however, that this committee will develop into one of the most important instruments of Parliament and will lead to better accountability and more transparency in Government. The New NP therefore supports the adoption of this referred First Report of the JBC. [Applause.]
Mr A BLAAS: Chairperson, as was indicated, at this stage, this report deals mainly with trends and expenditure for the last three months of the financial year. There is a clear distinction between the role of this committee and Scopa to the extent that one looks at compliance, and the other one is supposed to look at performance against the Budget and expenditure against plan.
There are concerns in the report which may or may not be serious. But I would like to say that I fully endorse what the hon Woods has said regarding the physical role and information that is required by this meeting to meaningfully report back to Parliament on that process. As was indicated, there may be a lack of capacity and I think Free State is an example regarding where it was indicated that there was an underspending on both current and capital expenditure.
Another aspect that came from this report is dumping, and that may be a serious problem. If we look at the expenditure pattern we notice that one department spent 50% of their budget in the last month, another spent 40% and another one spent 30%. In total, 18 departments spent more than 10% of their budgets in the last month of the financial year. Surely, that raises questions somewhere. And, regarding this, the committee needs to intervene in time when it identifies problem areas in spending patterns, including unnecessary spending. A closer co-operation between the Budget committee and the portfolio committees is needed in such instances. A cordially combined sitting may possibly be an option.
The ACDP notes the contents of this report and we will support the recommendations made herein. Thank you.
Ms N M TSHEOLE: Chairperson and hon members, the tide has turned. The fact that we are standing here discussing the first report of the JBC and the fact that the hon member, Lowe, can come and object or make comments on the Budget is something that is new. For that matter, it shows that the tide has turned. We are not prepared to hide anything, as the ANC. The establishment of the JBC, which is in accordance with the Constitution, is a clear indication that we have to monitor the departments. We have to ensure that their expenditure is in accordance with what they indicate in the narratives, and that there are measurables and aims with regard to their programmes.
Although we support and are ready to go according to section 77(2), we have to manage this process from the onset very, very carefully because there are quite a number of things which have been mentioned by the Financial and Fiscal Commission, and the SA Human Rights Commission which indicate certain things with regard to the delivery of certain departments.
I am going to concentrate on the social services cluster. According to the report, different departments fall into two categories: departments with the lowest expenditure and those with the highest expenditure. There are quite a number of reasons which may be advanced for this. But before I come to those reasons which have been reflected in these different reports by the Human Rights Commission and the Financial and Fiscal Commission, I would like to send a message to the departments to pull up their socks because we are still going to hold public hearings and interact with them to find out what has led to the irregularities depicted in the report. The other appeal that I would like to make is to portfolio committees. They need to ensure that they interact with the line-function departments in order to determine what could have led to this. Please, look at the report and interact with your departments so that we can, together, gradually ensure that departments stick to their aims, and that if there are any challenges those challenges can be addressed.
I want to look at the issue of Social Development and Health. I will just refer to certain departments. According to the report, we find that Social Development, Health and Education are classified as those departments that have the highest expenditures. One wonders what could have led to that - as the hon members have referred to the expenditure reflected in the report for January, February and March this year, that is the final quarter of the previous financial year.
The expenditures are high but when we look at the Financial and Fiscal Commission’s report we find that they mention the issue of constitutional responsibility and concurrent responsibilities from the national and provincial levels. The issue could be that the departments are faced with transfers to provinces. Therefore, those transfers, perhaps, could be the issue. In any case, I don’t want to pre-empt what the departments would say in accounting for that. But those are issues that the different social services departments are faced with because the minute the money goes into their accounts it has to be transferred to provinces that could be one thing that is responsible for that. However, we have to establish the facts regarding that.
The other thing that I would like to mention concerns section 32 of the Public Finance Management Act which emphasises that the departments must look at deviations from the actual expenditure. That issue was raised by hon Schneeman regarding the fact that we cannot concentrate only on expenditure, but that we need to look at qualitative expenditure. What impact does the expenditure have on communities? The report, as it is, indicates figures only. It doesn’t clearly show what has been the impact of the expenses on the ground. So those are some of the challenges with regard to the social cluster.
The departments in the social cluster deal with very sensitive issues. These are the departments that directly impact on issues of poverty. So, we find that these issues have to be looked at when we look at Social Development and Health. They have a direct impact on the issues of poverty. Those issues have to be looked into. But, we cannot say that we are not doing very well. As the ANC, we are going to claim the successes that we have made with regard to the issue that I have already raised, that of just being able to discuss the Budget.
The other thing that I would like to look at is the issue that is being raised in this report regarding the availability of data. It was only after the passing of the Public Finance Management Act that the departments started to compile data in order to be able to plan properly. So these are some of the things which, perhaps, need to be looked into. We must concentrate on the qualitative aspects while we address these issues. We must therefore, make sure that we don’t only concentrate on the amount of money spent, but on the qualitative aspects of that spending.
The other thing that I would like to address, which is peculiar to the social cluster, is the issue of the developmental principle which is built into it. This also brings us to the qualitative side of things. There are challenges which the social cluster faces because the issue of development requires longer planning instead of just passing the money to the respective recipients. They have to plan. Regarding the issue of developmental aspects which have been mentioned in several … I think that one of such examples even appeared in the education Bill. It is the planning which precedes the implementation which might delay issues. So, once processes have been planned it is easier to transfer money for the implementation at the end of the year. Those are the issues that we need to consider when we assess, as the JBC; we cannot just say that things are not going right. The issue of development is something that never existed. It is something that has just been introduced. People can just concentrate on figures. Our duty is not to concentrate on figures but to look at that. The other thing, with regard to the Public Finance Management Act, is we find that the measurable objectives have not been part of the strategic planning in budgeting. That will only apply in the next Budget, which means the 2003-04 Budget, so we find that the report is not able to reflect those issues because they were not supposed to be part of the strategic planning, with regard to budgeting. So those are some of the things that we need to consider when we appraise this report.
The other thing that I would like to raise is that we should look at the significance of the Budget, as hon Comrade Schneeman has indicated. We find that these departments, which are in the social cluster that I am trying to appraise here, are the ones that are very significant in connection with the issues that I have raised with regard to pushing back the frontiers of poverty. And, we want to emphasise that, in pushing back the frontiers of poverty, we are fighting for poverty alleviation. But poverty alleviation is not an end in itself. Because of that developmental principle, the paradigm shift, it is a means to an end - and the end is the creation of wealth. Thank you. We support the adoption of this report. [Applause.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Deputy Chairperson and hon members, Parliament serves as the custodian of national assets, and to this effect the Joint Budget Committee, over and above the portfolio committees and Scopa, monitors expenditure patterns of national departments and provincial administrations.
Fluctuations in spending persist in almost all departments. In an effort to utilise approved budgets within the fiscal year, spending in some departments surges from January to March. Such fluctuations bring to light that capacity in financial management procedures is still wanting and, invariably, compliance with the Public Finance Management Act of 1999 is compromised.
Expenditure patterns of the Department of Communications leave much to be desired as this department was still left with 54,2% of its budget by January 2003. The mind boggles at how they would spend the amount in three months when they could not do so in nine months. This is in the face of some areas in the republic not yet receiving television signals.
A host of other departments that keep lamenting their low budget allocations have also not been able to attain the national average balance of 10,3% at the time of the fiscal year. Among these are Social Development, Home Affairs as well as Health, and all these departments have to deal with people’s lives from the cradle to the grave. Surely there has to be improvement in the utilisation of allocated funds to justify calls for more funds and avoid roll-overs.
Accounting officers have to learn that overspending is not a good fiscal conduct. Four departments exceeded their allocations as at the end of March
- These are Samdi, Public Works, Statistics SA and Correctional Services. We hope that these departments will take a leaf from Parliament and the Department of Safety and Security on how to run their budgets.
While provincial administrations are trying to control their spending patterns, five provinces overspent their budgets, with Free State, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Western Cape underspending theirs. It is, however, better that way, considering that in the past it was a general trend. Finally, the UCDP supports the recommendations of the Joint Budget Committee. Thank you.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Thank you, Deputy Chair. Before expressing its views on the report, the MF would first like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its efficient work. Having read the report as printed on the ATC of 18 June 2003, the MF voices no objection to the recommendation that further capacity be built into financial management procedures. The highest degree of efficiency and effectiveness has to be maintained. It is felt that such capacity would benefit this process. The scrutinisation of departments’ strategic plans prior to embarking on new projects, to prevent overspending, is strongly supported by the MF as such information would assist in planning and budgeting effectively. It is hoped that role-players will be proactive in ensuring that they benefit from these recommendations.
The need for transparency is very strong in our democracy, in order to assure our people of the efficiency of this Government. Thus the recommendation that overspending and underspending be made open in public hearings and in Parliament is supported.
Further, the suggestion that we should facilitate a close working relationship between the Joint Budget Committee and sector committees would benefit nation-building. The recommendations made with regard to the provincial government are adequate. It is hoped that these would be adopted nationally.
The suggestion to embark on a study tour is supported, since it will provide us with an opportunity to take a closer look at the real situation. The recommendation for time management regarding reports, continuous technical and research support, as well as the prioritisation of capacity- building in financial oversight is found to be necessary and is supported. The MF notes the recommendations made by this committee and voices its support for such measures. Thank you, Deputy Chair. [Applause.]
Mr C M LOWE: Good afternoon, Deputy Chairman and colleagues. The hon Dr Pierre Rabie could unfortunately not be here this afternoon. He has prepared a speech, which I’ve agreed to read on his behalf. So, perhaps to my friends in the ANC, I’m sorry if I’m going to disappoint you, but it might be rather slow into the afternoon.
Nevertheless, may I just report that the First Report of the Joint Budget Committee must be seen in the light of the Government using the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework as a budgeting tool. The MTEF is, in essence, a budgeting mechanism which can be divided into a number of Government programmes. Of these, two important legislative measures instituted by the National Treasury include, firstly, the Division of Revenue Act, which is passed every financial year as part of the budget allocation process. It determines equitable division of revenue between the two spheres of Government and the horizontal division amongst provinces; secondly, the Appropriation Act, which provides for the appropriation of money for the National Revenue Fund for the executive’s requirement in respect of the relevant financial year.
My presentation will concentrate on the national Government’s revenue. Expenditure in national borrowing for the fourth quarter ending March 2003 shows that expenditure credits for the first quarter of 2003 showed a gradual increase from January to March 2003. The report states that Government Communications and Information Systems was still left with 50% of its budget unspent. In March of 2003 the department managed to spend 49,72% of the remaining funds in its budget.
This debate refers only to the first report, and an important aspect to notice is that the figures presented to the Joint Budget Committee were unaudited, which may change after the auditing process has been completed.
The monthly expenditure trends of national departments for the months January to March 2003 show that the average departmental expenditure as a percentage of the Budget Vote was 8,38%, with 20 departments spending less than this average. The report states that Public Service and Administration consistently spends a small percentage of less than 6% of their budget each month. Of most concern is that this department spent only 3,91% of its budget in October, November and December 2002, and only 3,97% of its budget in January 2003.
The report also states that the Department of Education was left with less than 4% of its budget by January 2003. The actual monthly expenditure for January was 0,85% of its budget. The question was asked whether 0,85% expenditure of the total budget was a realistic figure for the same period.
The departmental expenditure trends for February 2003 indicated that the average expenditure of departments constituted 7,44% of their total budget. The communications department was left with 50% of its budget by the end of February 2002-03.
Departmental expenditure trends for March 2003 indicated that the average amounts spent by national departments for the month of March constituted 9,3% of the budget. The lowest departmental total budget expenditure for March 2002-03 was recorded in Public Enterprises. Trade and Industry’s March expenditure was 15,71%. Its total percentage spent was 92%, leaving a balance of 7,67%.
The four highest departmental expenditures by the end of March 2002-03 were recorded in the SA Management Development Institute, then Public Works, Statistics SA and Correctional Services. The expenditure percentages of their budgets amounted to 107,5%; 104,09%; 101,69% and 100,36% respectively.
The DA believes that it is vital that the Joint Budget Committee and the heads of departments meet on a regular basis to deliberate on overexpenditure and underexpenditure in Government departments. I thank you.
Mr R J B MOHLALA: Deputy Chair, hon members, let me thank you for taking your time to come and listen to me. There is a lesson that a lot of us can learn from nature. If one were to observe a flock of geese, one would find that when it is winter they fly away from a dry place to where there is water. They fly in a V-shape fashion and one goose leads the whole flock. When that goose gets tired, it simply moves back and another one comes forward and they continue to fly. They fly in tandem and in support of each other, and that is precisely the way the ANC operates outside and inside Government.
When we deal with budget issues, we deal with issues in so far as they relate to performance against the Budget. Now, if you cannot hear, and start going through numbers and percentages and so forth, we end up confused ourselves. That was the point regarding the last speaker. He told us that the points that he raised related to figures that were not audited. Therefore, that presuggests that they cannot be taken as facts. There are other underlying situations involved there. Once you get an audited report, you will then be able to say, ``I put the blame at the door of this department’’. But before you get that, you cannot do it.
Let me illustrate that. If you look at the report, you will realise that it would appear that the Department of Education has overspent. It has spent more that 50% of its budget and there is only one explanation why that is the case. The explanation is very simple: At the beginning of each and every financial year the Department of Education is involved in transfers to institutions of higher learning, and those are huge transfers. Now, regarding those numbers, you have already said, ``These ones will never spend their money well and they are overspending’’, without actually looking at what is involved.
Let us move to another point. For your information, hon members, I have known hon Theron since he was still a councillor who represented the FF in the city council of Pretoria. I was shocked to find him in the DA. But, be that as it may, let us deal with the issues today. He said that it is wrong for a department to spend 89% of its allocation. Let me just inform him: It’s acceptable, universally so, to spend up to 67% of your budget. There is no crime in spending 89%. You want people to be involved in fiscal dumping and once they are left with 11% just spend it anyhow. We do not operate in that way.
However, let us look at what this Government has done. Regarding the community-based public works programme, this is one programme that has benefited the poorest of the poor communities through meaningful job creation which has created community assets and infrastructure in a more sustainable fashion. The other day, just two months back, I had an opportunity to go to a small town in Free State called Theunissen. The last time I went to Theunissen was in 2001. When I went there again, in 2003 - those who know Theunissen will be shocked by what I went through - I got lost. Why I got lost is because there was so much development that I could not find the route that I had used the last time. [Applause.] This Government has not stopped at that. It has moved forward and actually engaged in an expanded public works programme.
Every now and then we get told how we are not delivering, and how we are not changing our people’s lives. Let us look at the points and look at the facts. In terms of the promotion of small, medium and micro enterprises we all know that the rate at which SMMEs are born compared to the rate at which they die is so insignificant minimal that it is almost equal. That is a fact; but look at what this Government has done. Just recently, no less than R40 million was spent in promoting small, medium and microenterprises in the construction area of the Coega development. That is good. That is why we have to support this Government. Further, this Government has ensured that, in a very short space of time, 2 500 families have the pleasure of taking a key and opening a door of a house and saying, ``This is my house. This is my house’’. [Applause.] These are facts.
It is only through disciplined monetary policy that we will see fruits of our government. Regarding the interest rate cuts, when you cut interest rates there is a disposable income. When there is a disposable income, there is an increase in savings. When there is an increase in savings, an individual is prepared for the hard times. And it’s only this Government that makes sure that these things happen.
However, there are other things that we need to look at. We need to look at how our banking systems are. There are flaws in the banking system. So, in this flock of geese that is flying, there are these other geese somewhere at the back who do not pull together with us. And we need to point out that the banks are letting us down. We need to find a way of ensuring that the banks look at the interest of the poorest of the poor. How does that happen? The money of a person who makes smaller deposits will earn a small interest. Surely, we need to look at it the other way round. We must encourage our people to save. Once they save, our economy will grow and poverty will be alleviated. Maybe, I say maybe, our Minister, hon Trevor Manuel, should regulate that certain portions of the hard-earned interest should be tax free. Then, once people know that they could save on tax by saving, they will be encouraged to save; I said, maybe.
Let us leave that one and look at how retailers behave. Where there is an interest cut on one side, we expect prices to go down. Do they ever go down? They never go down, they remain there. We must find a way of ensuring that our Pick n’ Pays, Trade Centres, and our Shoprite/Checkers actually move in tandem and in support of the flock of geese that is flying to prosperity. I want to thank you all. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon member. This time it was the geese and not the porcupine. [Laughter.]
Debate concluded.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move that the report be adopted.
Question agreed to.
Report adopted.
The House adjourned at 18:04. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
FRIDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2003
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism:
(1) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 12 September 2003 in terms
of Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bills as section 75
Bills:
(i) Superior Courts Bill [B 52 - 2003] (National Assembly -
sec 75).
(ii) Agricultural Produce Agents Amendment Bill [B 53 - 2003]
(National Assembly - sec 75).
(iii) Electoral Laws Amendment Bill [B 54 - 2003] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
- Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159: (1) Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill, 2003, submitted by the Minister of Transport on 8 September 2003. Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Transport and the Select Committee on Public Services.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Education:
Report and Financial Statements of the South African Qualifications
Authority for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors for 2002-2003. [RP 115-2003].
- The Minister of Finance:
Government Notices No R1208 and R1209 published in Government Gazette
No 25370 dated 29 August 2003: Amendment of Regulations in terms of the
Long-Term Insurance Act, 1998 (Act No 52 of 1998). 3. The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:
Report and Financial Statements of the South African Blind Workers
Organisation for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors for 2002-2003.
- The Minister of Public Enterprises:
Report and Financial Statements of Transnet Limited for 2002-2003,
including the Report of the Independent Auditors for 2002-2003.
- The Minister of Sport and Recreation:
Report and Financial Statements of Vote No 19 - Department of Sport and
Recreation for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements for 2002-2003.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs on the Agricultural Produce Agents Amendment Bill [B 53 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75), dated 2 September 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, having considered the subject of the Agricultural Produce Agents Amendment Bill [B 53 - 2003] (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 53A - 2003].
MONDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER 2003
ANNOUNCEMENTS: National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism:
(1) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 15 September 2003 in terms
of Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bill as a section
75 Bill:
(i) South African Citizenship Amendment Bill [B 55 - 2003]
(National Assembly - sec 75).
(2) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 15 September 2003 in terms
of Joint Rule 160(4), classified the following Bills as section 76
Bills:
(i) National Environmental Management Second Amendment Bill [B
56 - 2003] (National Council of Provinces - sec 76).
(ii) Social Assistance Bill [B 57 - 2003] (National Assembly -
sec 76).
- Introduction of Bills:
(1) The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
(i) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment
Bill [B 60 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 74) [Bill and
prior notice of its introduction published in Government
Gazette No 25302 of 4 August 2003.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Justice
and Constitutional Development of the National Assembly, as well
as referral to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for
classification in terms of Joint Rule 160, on 16 September 2003.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bills may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
within three parliamentary working days.
-
Translation of Bills submitted: (1) The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:
(i) Wysigingswetsontwerp op Deeltitels [W 43 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75).
This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Sectional Titles Amendment Bill [B 43 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75).
National Assembly:
- Membership of Committees:
(1) The following changes have been made to the membership of
Standing Committees, viz:
Public Accounts:
Appointed: Meruti, V (Alt).
(2) The following changes have been made to the membership of
Portfolio Committees, viz:
Environmental Affairs and Tourism:
Discharged: Lekgoro, M K.
- Dr S C Cwele has been elected as Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on Intelligence Legislation with effect from 12 September 2003.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
Report and Financial Statements of the Development Bank of Southern
Africa Limited for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors for 2002-2003.
- The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:
(a) Membership to the Statutes of the International Centre for
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, tabled in terms of section
231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Statutes of the International
Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.
- The Minister of Trade and Industry:
Report and Financial Statements of the South African Bureau of
Standards (SABS) for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2002-2003.
National Assembly:
- The Speaker: Written comments received from the public and provincial legislatures on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Amendment Bill [B 60 - 2003], submitted by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 74(6)(a) of the Constitution, 1996.
Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional
Development.
TUESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2003
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- Bills passed by Houses - to be submitted to President for assent:
(1) Bill passed by National Council of Provinces on 16 September
2003:
(i) Special Pensions Amendment Bill [B 35B - 2002] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
- Translations of Bills submitted:
(1) The Minister for Provincial and Local Government:
(i) Wysigingswetsontwerp op Plaaslike Regering: Munisipale
Stelsels [W 49 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75).
This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Local
Government: Municipal Systems Amendment Bill [B 49 - 2003]
(National Assembly - sec 75).
National Assembly:
- Bills passed by National Council of Provinces and transmitted to National Assembly:
(1) Message from Council to Assembly:
(i) Bill, as amended, passed by Council on 16 September 2003
and transmitted for consideration of Council's amendments:
(a) Financial and Fiscal Commission Amendment Bill [B 21D -
2003] (National Assembly - sec 76).
The amended Bill has been referred to the Portfolio Committee on
Finance for a report and recommendations on the Council's
amendments.
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Foreign Affairs:
The Operationalisation of the African Union and Implementation of Nepad
Programmes - Placing Africa on a Path of Lasting Growth and
Development.
- The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote No 35 - Department of
Science and Technology for 2002-2003, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2002-2003 [RP 163-
2003].
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the National Arts Council of
South Africa for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2002-2003 [RP 114-2003].