National Assembly - 17 September 2003
WEDNESDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2003 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:00.
The Chairperson of Committees took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
STRATEGY TO FIGHT AIDS IN PRISONS
(Member's Statement)
Mnr D V BLOEM (ANC): Mnr die Voorsitter, ek wil die Departement van Korrektiewe Dienste gelukwens met die wyse waarop hulle met HIV/Vigs strategie implementeer, ten einde te verseker dat personeel in gevangenisse opgelei is en ingelig word oor hierdie baie belangrike en sensitiewe aangeleentheid.
Dit is ook prysenswaardig dat die departement hierdie saak nie alleen hanteer nie, maar in vennootskap met nie-regeringsorganisasies om hierdie strategie te implementeer. Daar word met waardering kennis geneem van die goeie werk wat Khulisa doen om die jeug tussen die ouderdomme van 18-25 jaar op te lei en kundig te maak oor Vigs. HOPE Worldwide lei gevangenes in Johannesburg Gevangenis op in die lekeberading en die hantering en versorging van terminaalsieke gevangenes en die Planned Parent Association wat besig is om ‘n beradingsprogram vir gevangenes in Durban te implementeer.
Ons ondersteun die departement ten volle met hierdie goeie werk as deel van die rolspelers in die stryd om Vigs in ons land te bekamp. Ons wens hulle sterkte toe met hierdie groot taak en vertrou dat hulle sal … [Tyd verstreke.] [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr D V BLOEM (ANC): Mr Chairman, I wish to congratulate the Department of Correctional Services on the way in which they are implementing the HIV/Aids strategy so as to ensure that staff in prisons are trained and informed about this very important and sensitive matter.
It is also commendable that the department is not handling this issue alone, but is implementing this strategy in partnership with nongovernmental organisations. One notes with appreciation the good work that Khulisa is doing to train and inform the youth between the ages of 18 and 25 years about Aids. HOPE Worldwide is training prisoners in Johannesburg Prison in lay counselling and the handling and care of terminally ill prisoners, and the Planned Parent Association is implementing a counselling programme for prisoners in Durban.
We fully support the department with this good work as one of the role- players in the battle to combat Aids in our country. We wish them well with this great task and trust that they … [Time expired.] [Applause.]] ARMS DEAL AND ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF DEPUTY PRESIDENT IN CORRUPTION
(Member's Statement)
Mr W J SEREMANE (DA): Chairperson, in the light of the turmoil that exists, I suggest that President Mbeki should use the opportunity of the President’s question time in this House tomorrow to break his silence on the arms deal and Deputy President Jacob Zuma’s alleged role in possible corruption.
The President has remained disturbingly silent. The investigation into alleged corruption in the arms deal has degenerated into an acrimonious no- holds-barred fight between factions within the ruling party - the Zuma camp versus the supporters of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
In order to restore faith in his Government, the President, tomorrow should, amongst other things, acknowledge that it would be appropriate that the Deputy President steps down until or unless he clears his name. This is also consistent with the case of the former Deputy Minister of Social Development, David Malatsi. He should express full confidence in the National Director of Public Prosecutions; reaffirm the independence of this constitutionally entrenched institution; and welcome, not discourage, further interrogation of the arms deal. I thank you. [Applause.]
FIFTH WORLD PARKS CONGRESS
(Member's Statement)
Mrs L R MBUYAZI (IFP): Chairperson, today is the final day of the Fifth World Parks Congress. This is the first time a World Parks Congress has been held in Africa.
The congress, which is a ten-yearly event, has been held in Durban from 8 September. It provides a major global forum that sets an agenda on the management of protected areas.
The theme of the 2003 congress is ``Benefits Beyond Boundaries’’. The congress is of great importance as it offers an opportunity to take stock of protected areas as well as chart the course for protected areas over the next decade and beyond.
The fact that the congress is being held in Africa will, hopefully, put African parks in the international spotlight and provide them with much- needed support. We, therefore, welcome the recommendations of the congress that the international community should provide financial and technical help for Africa’s protected areas. I thank you.
CONCERNS OVER CONTINUED MILITARY OCCUPATION OF PALESTINIAN LAND
(Member's Statement)
Mr M RAMGOBIN (ANC): Mr Chairperson, the ANC notes with deep concern the tense situation in the Middle East which arises from the continued military occupation - of unprecedented duration and which has lasted for 36 years since the end of the war in 1967 - of Palestinian land by the state of Israel; and, the provocative actions of Israeli authorities who launched military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the course of Wednesday, 10 September, and physically occupied the Ministry of Culture of the Palestinian National Authority.
The inflammatory and unprecedented decision of the Israeli cabinet to deport or otherwise remove President Yasser Arafat from the West Bank, is another reckless step that derails peace processes in that region.
The ANC joins the international community in condemning, unreservedly, the actions of the Israeli government, particularly the threats pronounced by its highest office against the person and life of President Yasser Arafat; and, urges both parties to stick to the UN resolution to pursue the goal of peace and the immediate recognition of and respect for the sovereignty of the independent state of Palestine. I thank you very much.
CLOSURE OF THE DAILY NEWS IN ZIMBABWE
(Member's Statement)
Ms C JOHNSON (New NP): Chairperson, the New NP believes that the forced closure of Zimbabwe’s only independent newspaper, The Daily News, amounts to yet another human rights violation in Zimbabwe. Press freedom and freedom of speech are fundamental rights, all the more so in Zimbabwe where newspapers are supposed to be registered with the media commission which is government-run. The New NP further notes with concern that the police in Zimbabwe have allegedly raided the offices of the newspaper and confiscated their equipment.
The New NP believes that the forced closure of The Daily News is a contravention of many international instruments which guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It contravenes the African Union’s founding act, it flies in the face of Nepad and makes a mockery of the African Charter of people’s and human rights.
The New NP calls on all signatories of these international agreements to urge for the paper’s reopening. The New NP further calls on the South African Government to place the issue of press freedom on the agenda as a matter for urgent discussion at the upcoming Commonwealth Summit to be held in Nigeria.
GANG RAPE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
(Member's Statement)
Ms N C NKABINDE (UDM): Chairperson, the UDM expresses shock at the allegations of a gang rape which occurred at the University of Pretoria students residence. If there is any evidence of premeditated planning to target, deceive, drug and abuse this young girl, and at the same time ensure that the event is photographed, then the alleged offenders are nothing but predators who deserve no leniency before the courts.
Several criminal incidents in the past month at institutions of tertiary education across the country have been of great concern. Assaults, sexual abuse and even riots involving resident students contradict the rights and principles enshrined in our Constitution. It also reflects badly on the youth whom we expect to lead this country to a more equal and just future.
Incidents of this nature are completely unacceptable in a country where only a small percentage of the youth get an opportunity to study beyond matric. It is sad that some students waste this opportunity and opt to engage in criminal activities. We call upon all students to show leadership and integrity by exposing those among them who bring their institutions into disrepute and squander the opportunities that so many of their less fortunate peers can only dream of. I thank you.
CRIME AT TSHOLOFELO MANGOPE SCHOOL IN THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE
(Member's Statement)
Ms P K MOTHOAGAE (ANC): Chairperson, as the ANC, we note the unacceptably high level of burglaries and thefts experienced by the school community of Tsholofelo Mangope Middle School in the Lehurutshe township in the North West province.
We further note marches and the vigilante action of both learners and educators in tracing and retrieving school equipment allegedly stolen from their school. We believe that the establishment of a community policing forum in the area will ensure that the scourge of crime is nipped in the bud. We call for the intervention by the area commissioner to restore public confidence in the Police Service and improve relations with the community.
EXPENSIVE FUNERALS AMONG POOR PEOPLE
(Member's Statement)
Dr M S MOGOBA (PAC): Chairperson, The Sunday Times of 31 August 2003 had a telling headline. It said, and I quote “Funerals spell financial suicide”. The article analyses the disconcerting trend of poor people buying caskets worth about R19 750, hiring toilets and buses and then throwing a feast for the mourners.
The South African Council of Churches observed that funerals are the single greatest drain on savings for township families and that low-income families under pressure to show love and respect for departed family members choke themselves. People who can barely afford groceries go out and spend up to R18 000 on a casket. This is a serious moral question which challenges church, political and financial leaders of the nation.
The present trend of semi-state funerals for everybody sets a dangerous precedent for the nation. It promotes a lifestyle which is unwise and unaffordable to the majority of our people and has the capacity to ruin families and the nation financially.
HOUSING PROJECT IN NORTHERN CAPE
(Member's Statement) Ms E NGALEKA (ANC): Chairperson, in line with the commitment of the ANC government to reconstruct and develop our country, an amount of R22 million has been set aside for a housing project at Platfontein in the Northern Cape. What makes this a remarkable project is that the !Xu and Kwe communities will not only be integrated as one community, but will be proud house owners. The integration of these communities will hopefully solidify the preservation of the San culture and encourage unity in diversity.
Equally important is the fact that the project will allow for job creation opportunities amongst the unemployed in the area. A further important step taken with the integration of the !Xu and Kwe communities is a social management plan which will ensure that the communities successfully adapt to their new environment. There will be monitoring of the community for three months to ensure that they are well settled.
This is only one of many projects of the ANC government to restore dignity and push back the frontiers of poverty. I thank you. [Applause.]
HARDSHIPS EXPERIENCED BY FISHING COMMUNITIES
(Member's Statement)
Mrs P DE LILLE (ID): Chairperson, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the hardships experienced by the fishing communities along the coastline of South Africa.
Traditional fisherpeople have been deprived of earning a livelihood, which they have been engaged in for centuries. Thousand of fishing families have been left destitute. They have no money to pay for food, rent, electricity and school fees.
Numerous appeals for help to the Western Cape MEC for Social Development have fallen on deaf ears. I myself have written two letters to him outlining the extent of the crisis, and he has not even bothered to respond. Coastal communities throughout the province are starving, including Kalk Bay, Hout Bay, Ocean View, Velddrif, Brittaniabaai, St Helena, Laaiplek, Paternoster, Stilbaai, Saldanha, Stompneus, Vermaaklikheid, Witsand, Mosselbaai en Gansbaai. Besides these Western Cape communities, there are also fishing communities in Durban who are experiencing the same hardships.
I find it bewildering that a plan was not formulated in advance to deal with the social crisis. It is one thing for the Government to take away people’s livelihood, but not providing them with a form of social assistance is completely unjust.
I have therefore helped the communities to set up a line fishermen’s relieve fund. I appeal to all people to donate to this fund, so that the thousands of families along both coastlines can be fed.
We are dealing with a crisis and this Government seems intent on allowing the people to starve. I will not allow that to happen. [Interjections.] I therefore call on Minister Valli Moosa to grant exemptions to all handline and small-net fishermen, so that they can at least fish and provide for their families …
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, your time has expired.
Mrs P DE LILLE: … while there is all this mess that has been caused through this rights allocation process. Thank you. [Interjections.]
NEW NP'S SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION ON SCHOOL GOVERNING BODIES
(Member's Statement)
Mnr W P DOMAN (DA): Voorsitter, die skokkende optrede van die Nuwe NP wat gister ten gunste van wetgewing gestem het om streng regulering toe te pas op skoolbeheerliggame indien hulle onderwysers met skaars kwalifikasies, of vir ekstra uitstaande diens, wil vergoed, sal die kieserskorps finaal van die Nuwe NP vervreem. Die Nuwe NP se leë lippediens om vir die regte van beheerliggame te veg, sal niemand oortuig nie. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Deur vir elke subklousule te stem in die komitee en deur die wetgewing goed te praat, het die Nuwe NP sy gewig ten volle by die ANC ingegooi om kwaliteitsonderwys verder af te breek. Die Nuwe NP het einde verlede jaar nog teen wetgewing gestem wat beheerliggame se magte aangetas het, maar dit is duidelik dat die Nuwe NP nou só verbind is aan die ANC dat die gehalte van onderwys gerieflik op die altaar geplaas word.
Die DA sal voortgaan om te veg vir die regte van onderwysers, beheerliggame en ouers, en bedank laasgenoemde vir die groot finansiële opofferinge wat gemaak word om gehalte onderwys te verseker; terwyl die staat die geleentheid gebied word om, soos ons dit graag sal wil sien, sy beskikbare bronne, danksy hierdie ouerhulp, aan te wend om sukkelende skole te bemagtig. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr W P DOMAN (DA): Chairperson, the shocking behaviour of the New NP, which yesterday voted in favour of legislation to enforce strict regulation of school governing bodies if they want to remunerate teachers with scarce qualifications, or for exceptionally outstanding service, will finally alienate the electorate from the New NP. The New NP’s empty lip service about fighting for the rights of governing bodies will not convince anyone. [Interjections.]
By voting for every subclause in the committee and by condoning the legislation, the New NP has thrown its weight completely behind the ANC to break down quality education even further. At the end of last year the New NP still voted against legislation which tampered with the power of governing bodies, but it is clear that the New NP is now so committed to the ANC that the quality of education has conveniently been sacrificed.
The DA will continue to fight for the rights of teachers, governing bodies and parents, and we thank the lastmentioned for the great financial sacrifices that they are making to ensure quality education; while the state is being given the opportunity, as we would like to see it, to use its available resources, thanks to the assistance of these parents, to empower struggling schools. [Interjections.]]
HIV/AIDS SURVEY
(Member's Statement)
Dr R RABINOWITZ (IFP): Chairperson, the antenatal survey on HIV/Aids which has just been released comes to us 11 months after the event, with information one year out of date. Other statistics, quoted regularly, on HIV are between two and four years old. This indicates that mechanisms used by Government to track the progress of HIV are inadequate. They are not sufficiently transparent, nor are they sufficiently comprehensive.
The facts contained in this survey are disturbing in themselves, such as the estimated 4,7 million South Africans living with HIV in 2001, of whom 189 000 were babies who live an average of two and a half years; the increased incidence of HIV/Aids in women between 25 and 35 years and above 40 years; the higher incidence of syphilis; the 91 000 babies - that is 9% of all births - infected with HIV via mother-to-child transmission in 2001; and the rapid increase in the incidence of HIV in the Western Cape to more than 10%.
But a chilling aspect of the survey is its narrowness, involving only 396 sites, using only pregnant women and the fact that, of the 16 587 women tested, most were not informed of their status nor did they receive any treatment.
The data brings into question Government’s current approach and calls for greater transparency with results; why the need for testing; the need to inform those tested of their HIV status; and the need to treat all of those tested, at least for STDs …
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon member, your time has expired! Dr R RABINOWITZ (IFP): … with nevirapine and, if possible, to follow up with antiretrovirals. Thank you.
CRIMINAL VICTIMISATION OF TEACHERS IN LADYSMITH
(Members's Statement)
Nk P N MNANDI (ANC): Sihlalo wosihlalo, imibiko yokuhlukunyezwa kothisha eMnambithi kwaZulu-Natali isiphethe kabi kakhulu thina singumbutho kaKhongolose. Kubikwa ukuthi othisha baseZimisele, eVikinduku, kwaNodada, eShangela, eNtshele kanye naseNgoza sebeze banquma ukungayi ezikoleni kuze kuxazululwe izinkinga eziphathelene nokuphucwa kwabo omakhalekhikhini, ubucwebe, imali kanye nokunye okubalulekile.
Okuxakayo-ke ukuthi lezi zehlo zibikiwe emNyangweni weMfundo oholwa uNgqongqoshe we-IFP kulesi sifundazwe, kepha akunazinyathelo ezithathiwe.
Singumbutho kaKhongolose sithi oNgqongqoshe be-IFP kulesi sifundazwe, kwezemFundo nakwezokuPhepha, mabasukume balungise lezi zinkinga, ikakhulukazi ngoba nabantwana sekusondele isikhathi sokuthi bahlolwe. Sinxusa umphakathi ukuthi ubambisane nabomthetho kuliwe nalesi sihlava. Ngiyabonga. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu member’s statement follows.)
[Ms P N MNANDI (ANC): Chairperson, we as the ANC are very worried about the report that teachers are being victimised in Mnambithi in KwaZulu-Natal. It is reported that teachers at Zimisele, Vikinduku, KwaNdoda, Shangela, Ntshele and Ngoza have decided not to go to school until the problem of their being robbed of their cellphones, jewellery, money and other important assets, is resolved.
The problem is that these incidents were reported to the provincial Department of Education, led by the IFP Minister in that province, but no steps have been taken so far.
As the ANC, we say the IFP Ministers in this province, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Safety, should stand up and rectify this situation, especially because examination time is on the horizon for the children. We ask the community to work together with the police in fighting this disease. Thank you. [Applause.]]
RELEASE OF TERMINALLY ILL PRISONERS FROM PRISONS
(Member's Statement)
Mr J DURAND (New NP): Chairperson, before I start my statement I just need to welcome the hon De Lille back to Parliament after such a long absence. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Let the House note that Judge Fagan has echoed the call of the New NP that terminally ill prisoners be released on parole. This will save the taxpayer millions of rands and assist the Department of Correctional Services in dealing with the problem of overcrowding in our prisons. Overcrowding is costing the state R18 million a day.
While our prisons are overcrowded, no effective rehabilitation can take place. This also creates a situation in which petty criminals become hardened violent criminals. Once they are released, they commit violent crimes, and innocent citizens become their victims. Correctional officers can monitor terminally ill prisoners with the assistance of a system of electronic tagging. This will ensure that they pose no threat to the community.
There has been a drastic increase in the number of terminally ill patients in our prisons over the past years. Many of them are HIV-positive and suffering from full-blown Aids. The conditions inside prisons contribute to the progression of HIV and the onset of Aids and death. It is the Department of Correctional Services’ responsibility to ensure that the rights of HIV-negative prisoners are also protected. I thank you.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Are there any ministerial responses? Hon Ministers, do you want to respond to any of the statements? I am not sure whether the Minister of Education is paying attention. Hon Minister, do you want to respond to any of the statements? [Interjections.] NEW NP’s SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION ON SCHOOL GOVERNING BODIES AND CRIMINAL VICTIMISATION OF TEACHERS IN LADYSMITH
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Mr Chairperson, I apologise for that lapse in good taste. There were two questions, so I will answer them separately.
The one question was from the hon Mr Doman. He referred to the New NP reneging on their obligation to parents and to school governing bodies. Then he referred to quality education, and that falls essentially within the terms of reference of the Minister. We won’t go into the silly argument about terms of reference.
The New NP took the Bill, looked at it and said very clearly - as we heard the hon representative say - that there was no diminution of the powers of school governing bodies. They, the DA, are fighting shadow fights. They cannot accuse the New NP of hypocrisy when they are the real hypocrites, because they know, in fact, that what this does is enlarge the powers of the governing bodies. They are having a second bite at it. The governing body at present has no right to provide additional payments for perquisites
- no right whatsoever. We are now conferring a right, providing that that right is cleared with the employer, which is the province. They can play silly games then on themselves.
I think the hon Mr Doman is good for tiddlywinks, really. He won’t go beyond tiddlywinks, frankly. He shouldn’t play games with the House and impute motives to the New NP which they cannot have. Let me be quite clear: The words “quality education”, over which I had a fight yesterday, are our code words. They demonise the schools for which they don’t have any sympathy or any feeling. They exclude those schools.
We made it quite clear yesterday that, in fact, remarkable things are happening there - in these schools - these poor schools that you are saying should be supported. We are supporting them. We are transferring resources to the poor schools, and you don’t like it half the time. We are saying that they will get additional staff and all that. But they are doing their best and damnedest at the present time without all those resources. They had some of the best results last year. I think you should take into account that some of the best results last year came from township and rural schools. Believe me, that is true. I don’t believe in league tables.
The second question, the second point, is enormously important and it is the question of teachers not being able to work, because their problems have not been solved. I think that this is a very serious matter. I would make a very earnest appeal - I say this as a person who was president of my own union while I lived in Ireland - that whatever we do, the full effect of what we do should not be felt by innocent people, and they are the children really.
So whatever we do, whatever our grievance, whatever our hardship, the children should not be the recipients of our action. This is a compassionate appeal, not a demand - and I’m not demonising them - that in anything we do in this House or anywhere else, the best interests of the children should be paramount. That is why I would ask the teachers in Ladysmith not to embark on that action. If you supply me with the details later, it will always be a pleasure to see you privately, comrade. If you supply me with the information privately, I will take it up with the MEC in KwaZulu-Natal.
Part of the problem is that many state institutions don’t reply to letters and don’t listen to representations in a reasonable period. The administration Act says quite clearly that decisions will be taken in a reasonable time. But, more importantly, where there is a crisis and the children suffer, then there is an absolute need to act speedily, effectively and efficiently. So if you supply me with the information, I will take it up. I hope you will use your influence with the teachers to go back. The national Minister will intervene. Thank you very much. [Time expired.]
CRIME AT TSHOLOFELO MANGOPE SCHOOL IN THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Thank you, Chairperson. I am responding to the question relating to the incident at a Lehurutshe school in the North West province. I do want to remind members of this House that I have raised this big problem of vigilantism before. I have indicated how vigilantism manifests itself and how it is an attack on democracy. History is replete with examples of how some reactionaries resistant to governments had to resort to vigilantism as one of the instruments used for the oppression of citizens.
We must be very careful about vigilantism. It is incumbent on us therefore, as public representatives, to continue to educate people about this matter. What we need to do, not only as communities, but also as the representatives of the people here, is to go to those constituencies where we work and indicate to the people the kind of systems and measures we have in place that would help them deal with matters that relate to safety and security, particularly where they are required to interact with the law enforcement agencies of the land.
I know that this statement requires of the national commissioner to ensure that he restores confidence in this country. It can’t be the responsibility of the commissioner only. It is also our responsibility. Let us, therefore, ensure that we build these bridges between the law enforcement agencies and the people that they serve, to ensure that this confidence is indeed consolidated. Regarding those who would want to form themselves into vigilante groups, we need to ensure that our people do not travel down that path. It is a dangerous path to follow.
Therefore I want to appeal to the people of this particular township to ensure - even if they understand the problems better and even suspect who might have caused these problems for their community - that they must go to the police and report these incidents so that, together with the police, they can put a stop to criminal actions of this kind. Thank you.
HARDSHIPS EXPERIENCED BY FISHING COMMUNITIES
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Thank you, Chairperson. I think I should join the other members in welcoming the hon Patricia de Lille back into the House. I think she had a good holiday. Concerning her appeal, I have not received any letter from her, but it is probably on the way. Nothing has come to my notice.
At the same time, it would probably have been much better for her to have directed that letter to the nearest MEC, so that the issue could move as fast as possible. I hope she is serious about what she is saying and is not just saying it because of the coming elections. With due respect, I hope it comes from her heart. Thank you. RESTITUTION OF LAND RIGHTS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Thank you, Chairperson. This is a very short Bill with only five clauses, of which only one is really substantial. It is a new insertion and has created a huge discourse, completely unnecessary and sometimes definitely malicious.
The position is that in order to speed up the procedure for restitution, in 1999 an amendment was introduced in the Restitution of Land Rights Act. This amendment basically made it possible for the Minister to get settlements or agreements outside the court in order to settle land claims. The present provision gives the Minister the power to acquire or expropriate land for the purposes of restitution of land, without the necessity to obtain a court order.
The interesting thing is that the Minister’s present expropriation powers are a contradiction in terms, because the Act says that if the Minister wants to expropriate land, she must do it by way of agreement with the present owner of the land. Expropriation by definition is not by agreement. Why would you expropriate if you have got an agreement? This is an absurdity that crept into this Act in 1999, before the elections.
We have to amend this Act, because it is clear that in the absence of a court power, the Minister cannot acquire or expropriate land for restitution purposes. She is only limited to circumstances whereby there is an agreement, which is fine if one has an agreement. But you do not get an agreement in all the difficult cases. The Minister must get these expropriation powers, in order to speed up the process.
A further problem is that the Minister has got ancillary powers that go together with her other powers when she obtains land. Now the amendment before us simply says that the Minister may purchase, acquire or expropriate land for the purpose of certain objectives, the first one of which is to restore or award land to a claimant who is entitled to a restitution of a right to land.
In other words, the Minister’s right to expropriate only becomes operational when there is, as a matter of fact, an established entitlement to a restitution of a right to land. That is crucial for the understanding of this law, because we were really defamed when it was said that we were getting outside of the rule of law or disestablishing the powers of the courts, which is pure nonsense.
Let me give you an example. We have a certain person, Mr Loggenberg, an important manager of the Transvaal Agricultural Union. He said the following:
Die magte wat die wysiging aan die Minister van Landbou sal gee, is ongekend in ‘n beskaafde wêreld. Geen wêreldleier of hof het die mag om die eiendom van een mens te vervreem en aan ‘n ander te gee nie. Dit is bloot ‘n stelsel van staatsbeheerde grondbesit. Dit is ‘n leuen. Dit is nie waar nie. Laat ek vir u ‘n voorbeeld gee. Verlede Vrydag is dr Phillip du Toit uitgenooi deur RSG vir ‘n onderhoud, sodat hy oor hierdie wetgewing kan praat. Nou sê hy daarso - en ek het ‘n transkripsie van wat hy gesê het: (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[That is a lie. It is not true. Let me give you an example. Last Friday, Dr Phillip du Toit was invited by RSG for an interview so that he could talk about this legislation. Now he said these - and I have a transcription of what he said:]
Kobus, ons is in die posisie om die volgende stelling te maak dat die Minister al die voorleggings aan haarself en aan die portefeuljekomitee suiwer van die tafel afgevee het.
Dis ‘n leuen en ek kom terug daarna. [That is a lie and I shall come back to it.]
Die Minister eien vir haarself die reg toe, selfs George Bush het nie die reg om enigiemand in Amerika se grond te onteien nie. Hy kan dit nie doen.
In other words he is saying that there is no article 5 of the Bill of Rights in the American constitution, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public purpose, without just compensation.
This is the type of misleading information that has been given to the farming community and the public, and has now even been repeated here by a senior member of the DA sitting next to me. [Interjections.]
The point is, shocking statements have been made about the intentions of the ANC in this regard. We emphasised time and again in hearings and during proceedings in the portfolio committee that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act is applicable to an expropriation. An expropriation is simply, technically speaking, an administrative act of an executive authority and is as such subject to review.
Let me tell you this. After the hearings and the proceedings in the portfolio committee, the New NP contacted the ANC and said that they wanted to have a reasonable process. They realised that this is a sensitive issue, referring to the arguments we had in the portfolio committee. The ANC said that they would, in the proceedings of the NCOP, include a reference to the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. It is an Act which the ANC brought to Parliament and of which we are very proud.
What will that imply? It would mean that before the Minister can expropriate - and she is in any event bound by it - she must give adequate notice of the expropriation. She must give a reasonable opportunity for the affected person to make representations. What more can you expect in a reasonable and civilised society? Let me tell you that expropriation is an instrument of progressive and civilised societies. If you don’t have that, namely a closely regulated procedure, you open the door for corruption on a very large scale.
Expropriation is an anticorruption measure. If you don’t have that, what would happen if the state buys in and out of property without it being regulated by the procedures which we have in the Expropriation Act? The Act has to be amended.
Everyone who comes here to address the House this afternoon should please just tell us what the intention of the Constitution in section 25 is. It is to effect an amendment to the Expropriation Act, just like the one before us, for restitution purposes. If you do not agree with that, please tell us why you are against the Constitution, because that is what it really means. You are against the Constitution. You don’t accept the Constitution. That is really true. [Interjections.]
Test every argument with which you oppose this amendment against the Constitution. Look at section 25(1), which says that you cannot arbitrarily deprive anyone of property. There you will find that that is exactly what is being done by this Act. That is exactly what is being done by including the reference to the Expropriation Act of 1975.
Test it clause by clause. Go and look at section 25(3) of the Constitution, which we include as a specific reference here. It says that the compensation must be decided by a court of law, as the Constitution requires in section 25(2). Very fair norms are spelled out in section 25(3). Look at the rest of section 25, which talks about the public interest, including the nation’s commitment to land reform and restitution. If you are against this Bill, you are against the land reform process in this country.
Klaar! Klaar! [Applous.] Oortuig my dat jy ten gunste van grondhervorming is en hierteen gaan stem. Dis die insig wat die Nuwe NP gekry het. Ek wens hulle geluk daarmee. [Applous.]
Wat sê hierdie mense? Die DA spesifiek is op sleeptou geneem deur hierdie soort van sogenaamde regskenners soos dr Phillip du Toit, die adviseur van die Transvaalse Landbou Unie. Hulle het elke woord van sy ideologiese leiding begin navolg. Dit is wat hier gebeur het. En dit is ‘n ultraregse standpunt. Hy is die soort van mens wat oor die radio sê: Die Minister is ``hell bound’’- dis sy eie woorde - om hierdie wetgewing deur te voer. Ons sal dit deurvoer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Over and done with! [Applause.] Convince me that you are in favour of land reform and will vote against this Bill. This is the insight that the New NP has gained. I congratulate them on that. [Applause.]
What are these people saying? The DA, in particular, has been taken in tow by so-called legal experts of this nature, like Dr Phillip du Toit, the advisor for the Transvaal Agricultural Union. They have started to emulate every word of his ideological guidance. This is what has happened here. And this is an ultra-rightwing stance. He is the kind of person who says on the radio: The Minister is “hell bound” - those were his very words - to implement this legislation. We will implement it.]
We will implement this legislation. We will get the land back for those to whom it belongs. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr N H MASITHELA: Chair, I am not going to address the discussion between the hon member Van der Merwe and me. The Deputy Minister has dealt with that matter, therefore I will not deal with it. Today we are dealing with a significant matter in the lives of our people. For purposes of pushing back the frontiers of poverty, land is key. Access to land is a source of survival for our people, especially blacks in rural areas.
On 8 November 1994, this House passed the Restitution of Land Rights Act to address the rights of those who were dispossessed of their land after June 1913 as a result of apartheid laws. The question could be asked why today, nine years later, we are amending the Act. The answer is very simple: at that time we were all excited about our democracy. We thought that everybody would support transformation in this country. I think we were wrong. We thought everyone would be willing to return land to its rightful owners who were robbed of their land through the 1913 Act.
In the principal Act, through the 1999 amendment, land claims could be resolved by way of settlement agreement, rather than being forced to go to court, thereby speeding up the process. This means that the settlement of land claims was based on the willing-buyer, willing-seller principle. This process has been a very problematic one. The Restitution of Land Rights Act allows the Minister to expropriate land for restitution only through negotiations with current owners outside the court.
This means that, in the absence of a court order, the power of the Minister to acquire or expropriate land for restitution purposes is limited to circumstances where an agreement has been reached with a landowner. With no order and no agreement, the process becomes completely frustrated. There is no reason why the Minister should be forced to obtain the agreement of all interested parties if the land is needed for restitution purposes, as the Minister has the power of expropriation for land reform purposes. This is enshrined in the Constitution of this country.
What this restriction on the Minister to expropriate land does is hinder the progress of land restitution. The Land Claims Commission has alerted us to the fact that in a number of cases it has been difficult to reach agreement on negotiations, because of the exorbitant land price asked by uncooperative white farmers. Taking these price negotiations to court is time-consuming when considering the urgency to resolve this matter, also taking into account that it is very costly.
Our people have been waiting patiently for us to give them their land back, particularly because they have lost land. How are we going to make the target of 2005 to resolve all claims if we allow the uncooperativeness of commercial farmers to delay this process? In the same breath I should acknowledge and congratulate those white commercial farmers who supported land reform redistribution, in fact, going out of their way by ensuring that those who got land from them get enough support to be able to run their farm efficiently and effectively. However, we should not underestimate the resistance of those white farmers to giving up land which they got from the masses of our country. They even went to the extent of establishing restitution-resistance funds with the aim of opposing the land claims. Considering this and other challenges to fast- tracking the settlement of our land claims, we should congratulate the restitution commission on the progress they have made so far in settling the land claims.
According to the restitution commission, 36 489 land claims have been finalised from 1995 to date - in fact, from 1995 until March 2003. This shows that the Government is willing to move faster on this matter. However, I am convinced that much still needs to be done to speed up the restitution so that we can meet the needs of our people, hence this amendment.
I want to appeal to those of our people who prefer financial compensation to access to land to reconsider their point of view. We would like to encourage those South Africans to consider the fact that land appreciates in value, whereas money is used up very quickly because of our social conditions, particularly because we Africans are very poor. They could also pass the land to their kids and their families, and land could be used for producing food for their families and themselves.
Coming back to the Bill, the main objective of the Bill is to fast-track land claims. It is also to deal with the huge backlogs of land claims. This is properly covered in clause 4 of the Bill, which allows the Minister to purchase, acquire or expropriate land for the purpose of land restitution and other land reforms. This means that in future the Minister will not need to reach an agreement with relevant landowners to obtain a court order in order to expropriate land. What is of concern to me is that most of the people have failed to lodge claims before the deadline for valid reasons. A large number of them, we are told by the restitution commissions, did not claim, because they thought that the Government would not comply or deliver the land. Some of them were advised or thought that they would not qualify. Now that they see the claims being delivered to our people, they suggest that we reopen the land claims. My problem with that is that it will be a can of worms. I, therefore, suggest that we, as a Government which is committed to redressing the imbalances of the past caused by the discriminatory laws of the apartheid government, do something about this.
The commission should also be complimented for realising this gap, and for introducing the new provision in the Bill that allows the Minister to purchase, acquire or expropriate land for the purpose of providing alternative relief for claimants who do not qualify for restitution. The Bill provides expropriation for other land reform purposes which are directly related to restitution, namely redistribution and tenure reform. What all this does is to provide a holistic solution to complex land reform problems.
At this stage I should make an appeal to our Government, and also concur with what was said and raised during the public hearings on this Bill, that the budget for land reform needs to be increased, so that the department and the commission can carry the responsibility given to it by this Government, to make land accessible to our people.
Let me now just touch briefly on what has been raised by opposition parties, which I know my colleague and comrades will deal with quite substantially. The issue of the power bestowed on the Minister to acquire land, or to expropriate land, without getting a court order is a problem which I acknowledge and which the opposition is raising.
The other issue is that the Minister will be allowed to expropriate land for any other land reform. I am convinced that these concerns are just based on white fears that this Bill will enable the Government to take over white properties for black people. It reflects a conservative mindset, and is somewhat of a resistance to progress regarding the transformation of unequally distributed land in this country. It should, therefore, not be allowed to undermine the delivery of land reform and its objectives.
What these people fail to realise is that the laws of this country bind the Minister, like any other member of the executive. To ensure that the Minister takes the concerns of the opposition into consideration, the landowners are entitled to make a representation twice - first to the commission and secondly to the Minister - before a decision is made to expropriate.
If the landowner is not happy with the decision of the Minister and thinks that the expropriation is unfair or unconstitutional, he or she can take the matter to court. In any event, the constitutional rights of these landowners are enshrined in section 42(e) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, which says that section 25(3) of the Constitution should be complied with. Therefore, the proposed amendment is not taking away the rights of the current owners to appeal the decision of the Minister, it only prevents the restitution process from being delayed by uncooperative landowners.
Before I sit down, I should take the opportunity to thank all members of the committee for the constructive contributions that they made in the committee. On behalf of the committee I also want to thank all the people who made representations before the committee, ie the Department of Land Affairs, the commission and the Ministry, particularly the Deputy Minister; and for the contribution they made regarding the finalisation of this legislation.
Access to land is a very contentious issue in this country and in the region. It is very difficult for everyone to agree, especially people who were dispossessed of their land and those who benefited from discriminatory laws. Lastly, I should remind all people in South Africa that through this Bill the Government, under the leadership of the ANC, shows its commitment to make the land accessible to our people. As we said in 1912, the land shall belong to those who live on it, black and white. I, therefore, wish to congratulate everybody who participated in this process. I am sure that if all those who participated in and contributed to the matter work together, we would achieve our objective as South Africans. Thank you very much.
The ANC supports the Bill.
Mnr A J BOTHA: Agbare Voorsitter, ek dink dit sal baie moeilik wees vir enige iemand om meer nonsens te praat hier vandag as wat die agb Adjunkminister gepraat het, maar ek moet die Voorsitter van die Portefeuljekomitee gelukwens. Hy het dit sowaar reggekry. Vir hom om vir ons te vertel dat met hierdie ding “the frontiers of poverty are going to be pushed back’’ … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr A J BOTHA: Hon Chairperson, I thought it would be difficult for anyone to talk more nonsense here today than the hon Deputy Minister did, but I have to congratulate the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee. He actually managed it. For him to come and tell us that with this ‘‘the frontiers of poverty are going to be pushed back’’ …]
… is the biggest drivel I’ve ever heard. They’re busy advancing the frontiers of poverty on a daily basis, as everyone in the country knows. I don’t think there is much purpose in talking to the ANC about this matter. We’ve been speaking for weeks and weeks and every time they respond, they come with this tired old racist story that…
… dis die wit boere daar buitekant en ons is die regse wit boere wat nie na iemand anders se rede wil luister nie. Vir dié wat na rede wil luister, luister ‘n oomblik hier. [… it is the white farmers out there and we are the right-wing white farmers who do not want to listen to reason. For those who want to listen to reason, listen to this for a moment.] The Restitution of Land Rights Act, which the Minister is seeking to amend, responds to the constitutional undertaking in section 25(7) to restore previously held property rights which were taken away by that party which the Deputy Minister served at a time when this party was opposing every single thing they did which was discriminatory. The DA fully and enthusiastically supports this restitution process, even to the extent of rejecting the land affairs budget, since it falls far short of what is needed to bring this shameful chapter to a close.
The Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 was promulgated to enable this restitution of, or compensation for, rights which had been unjustly and unfairly removed by racially discriminatory laws or practices. The Act provides for claims to be lodged for the restoration of rights previously taken away or for equitable redress. In the absence of a dispute, the matter is settled by agreement between the interested parties - and 40 000 such claims have been settled to date, notwithstanding the nonsense we’ve heard here today. There is no delay whatsoever as far as that’s concerned.
When there is a dispute about who the rightful owner should be, the Land Claims Court must, quite rightly, adjudicate, the matter in order for expropriation by the Minister to happen, if and when the need arises. This provision of the Act satisfies section 34 of the Constitution, which determines that ``everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or … ‘’ - and this is very important - ‘’ … where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum’’.
The Minister, who is not even here today, is, however, not satisfied with this provision of the Act, claiming in the memorandum accompanying the Bill that there is no reason why the Minister should either seek the agreement of the parties concerned or refer the matter to the Land Claims Court in the absence of such an agreement. Apparently ANC Ministers and Deputy Ministers regard themselves as exalted beings of infinite wisdom whose benign actions cannot be challenged or questioned.
In 1990 the Zimbabwean Minister of Agriculture also held this kind of view, which resulted in that Garden of Eden being turned into a barren and famine- stricken wasteland in just 13 short years. South Africa now has to feed the people of that country because their government has failed them. [Interjections.]
The provision of this amending Bill that enables the Minister to usurp the functions of a court of law in the settlement of disputes certainly does not satisfy the requirements of section 34 of the Constitution, as neither the Minister nor any member of the department can reasonably be regarded as appropriately constituting another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. They will particularly not be regarded as such under the whip of President Mbeki to conclude the restitution by 2005, which at best is just another pipe dream of the President. This provision certainly oversteps the division between the three spheres of Government. It has for a very long time - and universally, in true democracies - been accepted that a clear distinction must be drawn and a clear separation be maintained between the legislative, the executive and the judicial authorities. This Bill clearly does not satisfy this principle.
The only body that can and should jealously protect this division, is Parliament itself. It is therefore not only unwise but even shameful that hon members of this House, uncomprehendingly, especially on this side, and irresponsibly on that side, marched forth to commit this folly.
For this very fundamental reason the DA totally opposes the Bill and finds it irrelevant to discuss other bits and pieces, except to say that this Bill is not absolutely honest. It pretends that Sections 25(7) and 25(4) are one and the same thing. They are not. Section 25(7) is legislative restoration of property rights previously held and subsequently lost as a result of discrimination, whereas reform is a socioeconomic programme akin to black economic empowerment. And this certainly does not belong in section 25(7) as envisioned by the writers of the Constitution.
No good reason has been provided by the Minister for this amendment up to this point, except to emphasise the delay stories and how difficult the court process is. She has never once tried to expropriate one single piece of land using the present provision. It’s never been done.
The true reason for this amendment must therefore not be sought in the memorandum accompanying the Bill, but indeed in the political climate leading up to the general election. The much-vaunted better life for all has patently not materialised to the enormous distress of millions of people. Scapegoats must now be found to divert attention from the shortcomings of Government, in order to get the necessary support at the polling booth. This is an extremely dangerous and shortsighted folly for which the ANC will deservedly pay dearly in future. And the only way that we can prevent the rest of South Africa from paying dearly is to vote against this Bill and to vote against the ANC next year, to get a better government. Thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr M V NGEMA: Thank you, Chairperson. I must state for the record that when the Restitution of Land Rights Act was passed in 1994 my party, the IFP, voted against it in order to register its protest in support of a large number of communities who, in terms of the restitution of land rights as was proposed then, would not qualify for restitution as they were dispossessed of their land long before June 1913. The IFP opposed the original Bill not because it was against the objective of the Bill, but because the IFP could not agree to the selective justice the Bill was exercising when it excluded others in the process of undoing the wrongs of colonial and apartheid rule.
The amendment before the House today has been necessitated by negative experiences arising from the implementation of restitution legislation. The department has told us that the current process of restitution leaves Government and the claimants open to abuse by unscrupulous landowners who exploit every loophole in the willing-buyer, willing-seller process. The negotiation process in this regard is unreasonably and deliberately lengthened with the aim of frustrating the whole exercise, thus rendering the whole negotiation process an exercise in bad faith.
This is done through, amongst other things, asking unreasonably high prices for the land or raising other points of argument as a delaying tactic. The IFP believes, however, that this is a practice by a minority among a large number of landowners who are committed to restitution of land rights in line with the spirit of nation-building.
The Bill before us empowers the Minister to expropriate land for the purpose of restitution; to unblock the process whenever it is deliberately frustrated. The original Bill brought to the portfolio committee had asked to empower the Minister to expropriate for other reform purposes. Through negotiation among the parties in the portfolio committee, this clause was brought in line with other relevant legislation and procedures.
The IFP hopes that the hon Minister and the department will continue to co- ordinate this piece of legislation with other legal instruments governing other land reform programmes such as Esta and LRAD, in such a manner that we are able to run all the three legs of the overall land reform programme through the relevant legislation.
This will also remove the suspicion that some have expressed during the public hearings that this amendment was providing the Minister with a multipurpose tool to cut across all the other land reform programmes and would thus be open to abuse by any Minister in the future less committed to upholding the rule of law. We are assured that these amendments do no more than enable the Minister to intervene should the normal process of negotiation prove to fail its purpose.
The IFP is particularly happy about amendments to section 42(c) of the principal Act which enable the Minister to ``… determine, grant an advance or a subsidy for the development or management of, or to facilitate the settlement of persons on, land which is the subject of an order …’’
Finally, there was a suggestion during the negotiations to the effect that the state should also try to investigate instances and conditions under which it would consider the possibility of assisting land claimants in taking a restitution case to court, where appropriate. There are obviously a number of obstacles in this direction, such as lack of funds. But given all other factors it should be the aim of this Government to do all it can to facilitate the process which tries to undo the injustice of the colonial and apartheid states before it.
The IFP supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Ms C B JOHNSON: Chairperson, hon members, the New NP understands the need for land restitution in South Africa, yet we realise that there are many sensitivities and suspicions surrounding land restitution and the expropriation of land, in particular.
Daar is waarskynlik min ander besprekings of debatte wat soveel emosie by mense veroorsaak as wanneer dit gaan oor grond of die restitusie daarvan. Tog, moet ons daarteen waak dat mense hulle blind staar teen emosie alleen en dan nie die meriete van die argument behoorlik debatteer of ondersoek nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[There are probably few discussions or debates that stir up as much emotion among people as those dealing with land or its restitution. Yet, we must guard against people being blinded by emotion and then not debating or investigating the merits of the argument properly.]
When this amending Bill was before the portfolio committee to be voted on, the New NP voted against it. At that stage, we were of the view that not all of our constituents’ concerns were adequately addressed. Some of our constituents were afraid that the Bill did not contain sufficient protection for the landowner.
Maar sedert die wetsontwerp voor die portefeuljekomitee gedien het, het die Nuwe NP en die regerende party verskeie gesprekke gehad ten einde verdere maatreëls in die wetgewing in te bou om te verseker dat die vrese wat daar nog by ons grondeienaars en spesifiek by boere bestaan, aangespreek word. Die Nuwe NP en die ANC besef dat grondrestitusie moet plaasvind, maar dat dit op so ‘n wyse moet geskied dat dit vir almal aanvaarbaar is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[But since the Bill served before the portfolio committee, the New NP and the ruling party have had several discussions in order to build further measures into the legislation to ensure that the fears that our landowners and specifically farmers have, are allayed. The New NP and the ANC realise that land restitution must take place, but that it must take place in such a way that it is acceptable to everyone.]
In his address the hon Deputy Minister referred to the amendment that will be inserted in the Bill to specifically cross-reference the provisions of the restitution Bill to the provisions of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. We thank the Deputy Minister for agreeing to the New NP’s request in this regard.
Watter versekering sal hierdie bepaling aan ‘n grondeienaar gee? Dit sal beteken dat die grondeienaar, in alle gevalle van onteiening, voldoende kennis van die doel, die aard en die omvang van die onteiening sal kry; dat daar ‘n redelike geleentheid vir die grondeienaar sal wees om vertoë te rig; dat daar toegang sal wees tot ‘n reg op hersiening of interne appél; en dat ‘n grondeienaar geregtig sal wees op geldige redes vir die onteiening.
In kort, gee dit die versekering dat die Minister nie op ‘n arbitrêre wyse te werk kan gaan nie, omdat die administratiewe proses altyd onderhewig sal wees aan geregtelike oorsig. Die feit dat die bedrag van vergoeding ook deur ‘n hof beslis kan word, beteken dat daar wel aan artikel 25 van die Grondwet gehoor gegee sal word. Grondeienaars het niks om te vrees nie.
Diegene wat in die openbaar allerhande onwaarhede versprei, spoke opjaag of op ‘n sensasionele wyse emosies verder aanblaas deur voor te gee dat die Minister nou allerhande onbeperkte of drakoniese magte het en dat ‘n hof geen beheer daaroor sal hê nie, ken óf nie hul administratiewe reg nie óf hulle doen dit doelbewus. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[What guarantee will this provision give a landowner? This will mean that, in all cases of expropriation, the landowner will receive sufficient notice of the objective, the nature and the extent of the expropriation; that there will be a reasonable opportunity for the landowner to make representations; that there will be access to a right of revision or internal appeal; and that a landowner will be entitled to valid reasons for expropriation.
In a nutshell, this gives the assurance that the Minister cannot go about this in an arbitrary way, because the administrative process will always be subjected to judicial review. The fact that the amount of compensation can also be determined by a court of law, means that section 25 of the Constitution will indeed be adhered to. Landowners have nothing to fear.
Those who spread lies in public, raise spectres or, in a sensational way, try to stir up emotions by pretending that the Minister now has all manner of unlimited or Draconian powers and that the courts will have no control over this, either do not know their administrative law or are doing it on purpose.]
In summary, the New NP is of the view that based on the undertaking given by the hon Deputy Minister that the amendment will be made to the Bill, the New NP believes that there are sufficient checks and balances in this Bill to address our earlier concerns.
To landowners, we say: There is nothing to fear. As an administrative functionary, the exercise of the Minister’s powers will always be subject to judicial review by a court or a tribunal under the promotion of administrative justice. If people do not know this, they do not know their administrative law.
To those who simply oppose the Bill, we ask: Will opposing this Bill put a better legislative product on the table? No, it won’t. Will opposing this Bill do anything to address the concerns of landowners? No, it won’t. The ANC and the New NP are committed to putting a Bill on the table that is acceptable to all South Africans, black and white alike. [Interjections.] [Applause.] The only way to achieve this is by way of constructive and consensus-seeking politics, discussions and deliberations. [Applause.]
Die ANC en Nuwe NP praat met mekaar omdat ons die beste vir Suid-Afrika wil hê. Die Nuwe NP gee daarom erkenning aan die rol wat agb Ministers Didiza en Lekota en die agb Adjunkminister Du Toit by hierdie gesprekke gespeel het. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The ANC and the New NP talk to each other because we want the best for South Africa. The New NP therefore recognises the role that hon Ministers Didiza and Lekota and the hon Deputy Minister Du Toit played during these talks.]
The New NP supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Mrs B M NTULI: Chairperson, Ministers, Deputy Ministers, hon members, speaking in Rustenburg in January 2003 at the ANC’s 91st birthday celebration, President Thabo Mbeki said, and I quote:
2003 has been declared the year in which united action will be used to push back the frontiers of poverty. The main objective of the land reform policy is to redress the injustices of apartheid and colonialism, with specific reference to returning the land that was lost as a result of racially discriminatory laws. In order for the process to continue to function effectively, the constitutional right to restitution must be guaranteed.
When we attained our freedom in 1994, we inherited a country with millions of people who were afflicted by poverty. And, those were the people who had fought both for their emancipation from oppression and for freedom from poverty and want.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees equal access to land for all citizens. According to section 25(5) of the Constitution, the Government must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis. Expropriation is a well-established principle in law both in South Africa and other constitutional democracies in the world.
This amendment will do away with unnecessary red tape. It does not seek additional powers but allows for existing powers to be transferred to the appropriate Minister responsible for land reform programmes to ensure that more claimants enjoy the right to restitution in their lifetime. Restitution is a rights-based programme, not a willing buyer, willing seller or other forms of discretionary programmes.
Whilst it is preferable to have a negotiated settlement, it has become clear that these negotiations often collapse for a number of reasons. The current landowners are not prepared to sell. They are just buying time with negotiations and those who are prepared to sell often want exorbitant prices for the land. This takes a lot of time.
The Minister does not propose to act without any recourse to the law or launching any assault on the rule of law. The rights of property owners are clearly protected under the Constitution, including cases where expropriation is necessary. The Minister is going through a correct process in order to make amendments to legislation that will allow more efficient expropriation, within the framework of the law and the Constitution. We, the ANC, fully support this.
We, in the ANC, have a mandate from the people of South Africa to change the country and make it a better place to live in for everybody, and we are going to do just that. All the struggles of our people, prior to the declaration of the Union in 1910, were struggles against theft and dispossession of our land by the colonialists.
After the formation of the Union, dispossession and eviction of our people from their land was entrenched through statutes such as the promulgation of the Land Act of 1913. This piece of legislation was followed by numerous statutes which dispossessed the majority of Africans of their land, and prevented them from acquiring, and having access to, land.
Communities were torn apart. This has caused frustration and economic hardships. People were uprooted from their roots. All those who had no prior rights to land were given rights to occupy land and this was made possible through legislation. There were no court orders.
Wawuthathwa nje umhlaba wethu kungabi ndaba zalutho. Kuthi indoda yomuzi, umnumzane, ayohlaliswa emva kwendlu yenye indoda kuthiwa uqashile. Yihlazo lelo. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Our land was just taken away and it didn’t matter; then a man of the household, the head of the family, had to rent a room at the back of another man’s house. That’s a disgrace.]
In 1994, our democratic Government - that we fought for and family members had died for and others were imprisoned for - gave us hope that the wrongs of the past would be rectified. Yes, land was restored to some people. However, the majority of the people are still awaiting restitution, restoration and redress for their land because those who were pushed off the land were bitterly resentful. They forfeited their right to graze stock and had to abandon the one form of security that they had, which is the occupation of an arable plot.
Umuntu nje abe nezinkomo, izimvu nemifino ukuze izingane zakhe zidle ekhaya. [A person could have cattle, sheep and vegetables so that children had something to eat.]
The purpose of the Bill is to empower the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs to purchase, acquire, in any other manner, or expropriate land, a portion of land or a right in land for the purpose of restoration or awarding such land, portion of land or right in land to a claimant or for any other land reform purpose. Section 25(8) of the Constitution says that no provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land reform.
During the consolidation of the homelands, laws were used to expropriate land. But, now that the democratically elected Government wants to use the law to undo what the illegitimate apartheid government did in the past, people are screaming and kicking.
The ANC supports the Bill. In our view, it is going to speed up the process and facilitate the redistribution of land which will have a significantly positive impact for poor and landless people, and redress the results of the past racial discrimination.
The Bill is within the constitutional framework. Section 25 clearly stipulates that expropriation in the public interest is allowed. Public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and not only to roads, railways and dams. So, the Bill deals with the inadequacies of the current legislation such as the need to get an agreement and court order before expropriation.
Konke lokhu kuchitha isikhathi ukuze abantu bangawutholi umhlaba, ube-ke uthengiswa njalo uthengiselwa izifiki kuleli zwe. Kuyamangaza ukuthi bona laba abangawufuni lo mthetho baphinde babe ngabaphethe umhlaba. Bayabachitha abantu emapulazini abo kanti abafuni nokuthi uHulumeni anike abantu umhlaba. Kanti umuntu uyinyoni yini, uzohlala esihlahleni, noma uyinyoka, uzohlala emgodini? Awubuye umhlaba, sikhathele yile mpicabadala. AbeSuthu bathi: ki kgomo ya moshate wa e gapa o molato wa e tlogela o mulato.
Masibayeke-ke. Bona babona kungcono ukwenzela izilwane indawo kunokunika umAfrika umhlaba, abawuthatha ngomthetho. Sizowuthatha-ke nathi ngomthetho. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The whole thing wastes time so that people are not able to have access to land while, at the same time, it is being sold to people who are foreign to this country. It is very surprising that the very people who do not want this Bill are the same people who have the authority over the land. They chase people away from their farms and, at the same time, they don’t want Government to give people land. Is a person a bird? Is he going to sleep in a tree? Or is he a snake that lives in a hole? Land must be given back to the people. We are tired of this riddle. There is a Basotho saying that goes like this: “If you do it, you are in trouble - if you don’t, you are still in trouble.”
Let’s leave them alone, then. They think it is better to give land to animals than to give it to Africans, land which they took unlawfully. We will take it lawfully.]
We want to speed up the expropriation process where there is a need to expropriate in order to return people to their land so that they can create jobs for themselves. We need land for residential and productive purposes. We need to see new entrants in agriculture and also to end the skewed land ownership in South Africa. We, in the ANC, want to see poor people owning a piece of land and making a living out of that piece of land: urban and rural people, poor and very poor people, farmworkers and labour tenants.
Bonke laba abantu sibafuna bephethe isiqeshana somhlaba lapho bezokwazi ukuziphilisa khona. Mawubuye umhlaba, ubuyele kubanikazi bawo. Wathathwa kobaba. Awubuyele kithi, siwusebenzise ukuze siphile. Ngiyabonga. Siyawesekela lo mThethosivivinywa. [Kwaphela isikhathi.] [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[We want all these people to have a piece of land on which they would be able sustain themselves. Land must be given back to its rightful owners. It was taken away from our fathers, and so it must be given back to us so that we can utilise it. Thank you. We support this Bill. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]
Ms C DUDLEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the ACDP recognises the need for accelerated land reform in South Africa and supports endeavours to find fair and reasonable solutions regarding land restitution. This, of course, will necessitate adequate finance, which is presently not available.
We acknowledge the need to address the injustices of the past and appreciate the difficulties faced by the Minister and the department in dealing with these highly emotive issues, which dramatically and drastically impact on the lives of all concerned. We cannot, however, condone the drastic measures provided for in this Bill, which will undermine stability, food security and future growth and development in South Africa.
The ACDP is unconvinced by the department’s claims that these powers are necessary in order to deal with so-called obstructionist cases. Courts exist for the purpose of deciding on conflict between parties and it is unacceptable for the Minister to bypass the courts for the sake of convenience. Ministerial powers to expropriate land without a court order have no place in a democratic South Africa.
Perceived property rights in South Africa have been a major factor that has influenced agricultural stability to date. Whatever the intention, this legislation will, certainly, impact on the value of land and lead to a situation where both new and old farmers have severely diminished assets with negative consequences for all.
The power to take all the land that government wanted did not lead to prosperity or productivity in Angola, Zimbabwe or Mozambique and, instead, you can’t even give the land away. When land has no value, no one can produce. There is no interest, no food, no investment, no rural wealth and no rural development. Without good land prices, farmers have no collateral to access finance for production and there is no incentive to invest in agriculture.
If rural prosperity does not accompany land reform, surely, the objective will have been defeated. It will be devastating if previously disadvantaged South Africans, who have waited so long for a time such as this, become the proud owners of land which has no value. Land restitution is a sensitive issue and this heavy-handed approach does not augur well for a united and productive South Africa. Farmers are an important part of the food chain that produces and distributes food in and out of South Africa. This major source of wealth and foreign exchange is an asset and is at risk of being crippled by not only the realities, but also the perceptions created by this legislation.
The ACDP will vote against this Bill. [Interjections.] The ACDP, of course, would love to take up the challenge issued by the Deputy Minister to tell him exactly what is wrong with the Constitution. Unfortunately, as you know, I’m severely restricted by time because the ACDP, which consists of seven members in the National Assembly, is allocated the same amount of time as parties with just one member. This is the ANC’s idea of what is fair and equitable. [Interjections.] Thank you. [Time expired.]
Mr G T MADIKIZA: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Minister and hon members, the desire to finalise land restitution speedily is shared by all stakeholders, including current landowners who have or may have claims pending against their land.
This desire should not, however, become an overpowering factor in this incredibly sensitive and potentially explosive process. Whilst we acknowledge that there is a need to distribute land for restitution purposes, once it borders on giving excessive powers to the Minister it becomes problematic. What would happen if land claims were rushed through without consultation and consensus having been reached? Who would benefit and who would suffer irreparable damage?
It may appear simple at the outset that land restitution can be speeded up but once you scratch the surface, a far more complex set of issues emerges. It is an extremely complicated situation that requires careful and supple management. Above all, it is a process that places a heavy burden of proper consultation and dialogue upon all those involved, especially the Department of Land Affairs which must act as a fair and equitable facilitator in the process.
Property rights remain enshrined in the Constitution. The desire to finalise land restitution speedily cannot be allowed to lead us down a road of costly legal and possibly even constitutional court battles. We fear that this is exactly what this Bill would lead to. In such an event, the process would be delayed and the Bill would achieve exactly the opposite of what it set out to do. The UDM, therefore, does not support the Bill. I thank you.
Dr M S MOGOBA: Madam Deputy Speaker, this Bill is of an urgent nature because it addresses some of the injustices suffered by the majority of citizens of this country, three quarters of them, at the hands of the minority, one quarter of them. It is a Bill which seeks to redress the injustices of the past. The least that this House could do would be to give this Bill a unanimous endorsement.
Let me make the observation that, with time, there is a growing consensus among political parties that, only a few years ago, would have been unthinkable. This meeting of minds augurs well for the future of our country for, in truth, there is no future for this country without a vigorous restitution programme followed by an equally vigorous programme of land reform.
The core problem addressed by this Bill was well put by the Cosatu delegation during the hearings. They observed, and I quote:
The land restitution process has not taken place at an optimal pace, raising serious questions about whether all claims will be settled in time to meet the 2005 deadline set down by the President.
Again, underlying these problems is the adoption by the department of the willing buyer, willing seller approach to restitution which enabled many current landowners to hold up the process, either because they are generally opposed to the restitution process or demand unreasonably high prices.
We agree with this assessment of the problem. We are convinced that the Minister has not always found bona fides among some of the landowners that she has had to negotiate with. We feel strongly that she should be empowered to remove all the blockages in the restitution process.
The restitution process is only a small part of the land reform programme. It is common knowledge that we are dealing here with a small fraction of the land problem - hardly a quarter of the total land of this country.
This country will never have peace until it looks at the situation in a realistic way. All South Africans of all colours and of all parties are proud of the progress made in the political and human rights sphere. This, unfortunately, is not matched by progress in the land reform and redistribution sphere. It does not help to adopt ostrich tactics and think that the problem will go away on its own. We cannot, like the president of yesteryear, leave the problem to our children. We owe it to posterity to solve it now. All delays are inexcusable and could cost us dearly.
The PAC supports the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
Mr Z KOTWAL: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers and members of the House, land reform, including restitution, is a constitutional imperative. According to the Constitution, no party, whether a restitution claimant or a landowner, has an absolute right to land, and neither can hold a veto over the restitution process.
Ngo-1994 le Ndlu yaphasisa umThetho onika abantu amalungelo okwabiwa komhlaba, obizwa nge-Restitution of Land Rights Act, ukuze laba bantu bakithi abathathelwa umhlaba wabo ngesikhathi sobandlululo babuyiselwe umhlaba wabo. Eminyakeni emine eyedlule, lolu hlelo lokwabiwa komhlaba belungaphansi kwezinkantolo. Ngaleso sizathu lolu hlelo beluhamba kancane kakhulu. Ukuze lolu hlelo lusheshe, le Ndlu iphinde yenza isichibiyelo esinikeza uNgqongqoshe wezoLimo nezemiHlaba amalungelo okuphatha lolu hlelo. Lokhu kwenza ukuthi lolu hlelo lusheshe.
Kunezicelo zomhlaba zabantu basemakhaya ezingalungiswanga. Inkinga ekhona ukuthi abanikazi bomhlaba kusaxoxiswana nabo ukuze babambisane noHulumeni ekuthengiseni imihlaba yabo. Abanye babo banamakhanda aqinile.
Enye inkinga ekhona ukuthi kulaba abavumayo ukuthengisa umhlaba wabo, ubiza kakhulu, umba eqolo. [Ihlombe.] Njengoba siwuphasisa nje lo mthetho abantu basemakhaya bazosizakala kakhulu. Sizoyigwema indlala. Mayibuye! [Ihlombe.]
Sithi singu-ANC ababekezele kancane, kuzolunga. NjengoKhongolose, siyazi ukuthi kunzima kanjani uma uhleli endaweni yomunye umuntu. Kudala saphuma eGibhithe futhi ngeke sisabuyela khona. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Mr Z KOTWAL: In 1994 this House passed the Act that gives people land distribution rights, which is called the Restitution of Land Rights Act, so that our people should be given back their land which was taken away during the apartheid era. In the past nine years this land restitution programme was handled by the courts, and for that reason the programme was moving very slowly.
In order for this programme to move faster, this House introduced an amendment which gives the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs the right to handle this programme.
There are land claims for rural communities which were not processed. The problem is that negotiations are still under way with landowners so that they can work closely with Government to sell their land. Some of them are hard-headed.
Another problem is that when people do agree to sell their land, it is very expensive. [Applause.] As we pass this Bill, the rural community will benefit from it. We will avoid hunger. Mayibuye! [Applause.]
We say, as the ANC, that they must be a little patient; it will be all right. As the ANC, we know how difficult it is to stay in another person’s place. We came out of Egypt long ago and we are never going back there. [Applause.]]
Restitution is a rights-based programme, not a willing seller, willing buyer or other form of discretionary programme. The rights of property owners are clearly protected under the Constitution, including cases where expropriation is necessary. There is an obligation on the state to use negotiations where possible in order to deal with property owners, but also to intervene decisively where negotiations do not bear fruit.
The current options available under the Restitution of Land Rights Act in situations where negotiations are not successful are limited and biased against the interests of claimants. This is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which is based on balancing the rights of various parties, but not to the point of entrenching the status quo. However, the Constitution also promotes the principle of transformation, which must include redressing past inequalities in areas such as land rights.
Current landowners have demonstrated the ability to frustrate the restitution process to the point where a minute proportion of claims are being settled through restoration of land. Experience to date suggests that the powers available to the state are inadequate to ensure the restoration of land. It has also become clear that if we are to settle land claims in South Africa, the Government cannot be tied down to having to wait for agreements to be reached with current owners.
While there have been successes in settling claims administratively over the past years, this has only been where the owner has been a willing seller. As such claims are settled we will increasingly be left with those claims where the current owner is intransigent and unwilling to co-operate. Even where owners are willing to sell, they are only willing to sell at exorbitant prices and often on certain conditions. The time involved in negotiating such settlements is also too long. Without the ability to efficiently bypass such negotiations, if sellers are unreasonable, the Government is forced to pay excessive prices or agree to conditions that they may not otherwise deem in the interests of the claimant.
Numerous land claims, particularly rural claims on agricultural land, are stalled due to a deadlock in negotiations with current landowners. A solution is urgently required to break such deadlocks in a manner that is in line with the Constitution. Court processes, in terms of the restitution Act, have proved to be lengthy and expensive. The court is therefore not a viable solution for settling claims at the scale required by public demand and the targets that have to be achieved.
Opponents of the amendment have not raised any objection to the principle of expropriation but only to the use of expropriation for land reform, or when applied to the land of a particular group of people. This is not a legal or constitutional issue but rather a particular interest group defending its own position. The proposed amendment does not take away the right of current landowners to appeal decisions of the hon Minister. However, the proposed amendment does have the benefit of preventing the restitution process from being hamstrung by intransigent owners. The proposed amendment will ensure that more claimants enjoy the right to restitution in their lifetime.
While it is preferable to have negotiated settlements, we have already established that these negotiations have proved to be long and costly. Examples of such cases are the following. Regarding the Uitkyk community, whose claim was gazetted in October 1998, nearly five years later only two of the seven owners affected are prepared to sell. The Mafethe claim was gazetted in September 1998 but was referred to the Land Claims Court after negotiations with current landowners broke down. Expropriation was done in Farmerfield, in Grahamstown, but it took almost six years to take that through to the courts. An expropriation attempt was made in Boomplaas and, again, there were technical delays which led to withdrawal. In other words, it is untrue that the hon Minister has not implemented the existing cumbersome provisions for expropriation.
Dit is ondenkbaar dat ‘n georganiseerde landbou organisasie, soos die Transvaal Landbou Unie, in die openbaar die stelling kan maak dat daar oorlog verklaar sal word wanneer hierdie wysiging gepromulgeer word. Hoe kan so ‘n stelling gemaak word terwyl die regte van almal beskerm word in die Grondwet? (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[It is inconceivable that an organised agricultural organisation such as the Transvaal Agricultural Union could state publicly that war will be declared when this amendment is promulgated. How could such a statement be made whilst everybody’s rights are protected in the Constitution?]
President Thabo Mbeki said:
We speak in favour of peace because our people prefer peace to war. They yearn for peace because they know from their experience that without peace there can be no development. Without development we will not be able to realise the goal of a better life for all. Without peace we will fail in the effort in which we are engaged, to transform ours into a country of hope, and revert to the past on which we have turned our backs, a past of misery and despair.
Grondhervorming in Suid-Afrika en meer spesifiek restitusie het sy rug gedraai op ‘n verlede van wanhoop en pyn. Die teruggee van grond spreek nie net die herstel van grondregte aan nie, maar dit herstel ook die waardigheid van ‘n nasie wat nie net grond op ‘n onwaardige wyse verloor het nie, maar ook hul eie waardigheid. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Land reform in South Africa, and more specifically restitution, has turned its back on a past filled with despair and pain. The return of land not only addresses the restoration of land rights but also restores the dignity of a nation that not only lost land in an undignified manner but also their own dignity.]
We need to push back the frontiers of poverty by restoring land and dignity.
In conclusion, forced removals in support of racial segregation have caused enormous suffering and hardship in South Africa and no settlement of land issues can be reached without addressing such historical injustices. The task is huge and complex. Ngiyabonga. [I thank you.] [Time expired.]
HON MEMBERS: Malibongwe! [Praise!]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Igama lamakhosikazi. [The women’s name!] Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The injustices of the past have certainly left us in a fix, but it is a Bill such as this one that assists us in correcting the imbalances and strengthening our democracy for the present and the future. The MF, however, notes that there is a volume of work in this process and fully supports the need to accelerate rural claims, noting the 2005 deadline, and commends the accomplishment of the tasks in the urban claims. We have no objection to the authority that this Bill gives the hon Minister and note the heavy duty placed on the hon Minister. We are, however, confident that our efficient Minister will deliver an equitable, efficient and effective management process.
The MF acknowledges the constitutional rights of the landowners that this Bill protects and upholds. We firmly support this process. We find that the provisions to ensure that compensation is paid for the land and for the time and manner of payment are just and equitable, and these are strongly supported.
We are a Government for and by the people, thus landowners have rights too, which we will respect and uphold. The MF will stand strongly with the ANC in support of land restitution. All we ask is: Give back the land that was unfairly taken away by the apartheid regime to the people that owned it. Mayibuye imihlaba yethu. [We must be given back our land.]
The MF supports the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mnr C AUCAMP: Agb Adjunkspeaker, die agbare Adjunkminister vir Landbou en Grondsake Prof Dirk du Toit het met die laaste woorde van sy toespraak my finaal oortuig om teen dié wetsontwerp te stem. Hy’t gesê: “We will give the land back to those to whom it belongs.” Dis nogal eienaardig dat die agb Du Toit sê die Freedom Charter sê: “South Africa belongs to all who live in it.”
Die agb Du Toit het ook die podium gebruik om ‘n man by te kom wat nie hier is om homself te verdedig nie, Dr Phillip du Toit van die TLU. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Deputy Speaker, with the last words of his speech, the
hon Deputy Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, Prof Dirk du Toit,
persuaded me once and for all to vote against this Bill. He said: We will
give the land back to those to whom it belongs.'' It is rather strange that
the hon Du Toit says that the Freedom Charter says:South Africa belongs
to all who live in it.’’
The hon Du Toit also used the podium to attack a man who is not here to defend himself, Dr Phillip du Toit of the TAU.]
Hon Deputy Minister, if I have to choose which of the two Du Toits to back, let me assure this House I would go for Phillip and not for Dirk.
We are dealing here with a basic right enshrined in the Constitution. Section 25 explicitly states, “… no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property”.
Die NA is oortuig daarvan dat hierdie wetswysiging die Minister die reg gee tot “arbitrary deprivation of property”. Die agb Kotwal verwys na eise wat vir vyf jaar lank sloer. Ek kan u verwys na mense wat al vir ses jaar in die tronk sit en wag dat hul verhoor afgehandel moet word.
Ek sou wat wou gee vir die Minister van Justisie om dieselfde haastigheid te kry om die ellelange hofrolle van sulke mense af te handel. Die argument word hier gebruik van “Justice delayed is justice denied”, die NA sê: “Justice denied is justice deprived.”
Tot vandag toe kon ek vir besorgde grondeienaars sê daar is ‘n ordelike regproses, jy’t die volste toegang tot die reg. Nou kan ek dit nie meer sê nie, nie eers meer vir stedelike eienaars nie.
Hierdie wetgewing stuur die verkeerde boodskap uit, dit lyk na die begintree op ‘n Zimbabwe-pad. Dit bring onsekerheid by grondeienaars met vernietigende gevolge vir stabiliteit en voedselproduksie in Suid-Afrika. Indien die Regering van oordeel is dat sekere landbou-organisasies die proses onnodig wil keer, praat dan met hulle. Die antwoord in Suid-Afrika is kommunikeer, nie demoniseer nie. Die NA sal teen hierdie wetgewing stem. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The NA is convinced that this statutory amendment gives the Minister the right to ``arbitrary deprivation of property’’. The hon Kotwal referred to claims which have been pending for five years. I can refer you to people who have been sitting in jail for six years waiting for their trial to be finalised.
I would give anything for the Minister of Justice to show the same haste in
the finalisation of the lengthy court cases of such people. The argument
used here is: Justice delayed is justice denied.'' The NA says: Justice
denied is justice deprived.’’
Up to now I have been able to tell concerned landowners that there is an orderly legal process, that they have full access to the law. Now I can no longer say that, not even to urban owners.
This legislation sends out the wrong message, it resembles the first step on a Zimbabwean road. It brings uncertainty to landowners with devastating consequences for stability and food production in South Africa. If the Government is of the opinion that certain agricultural organisations are seeking to hamper the process unnecessarily, then talk to them. The answer in South Africa is communicate, not demonise.
The NA will be voting against this legislation. I thank you.]
Ms T E MILLEN: Madam Deputy Speaker, the purpose of this amending Bill is to increase the powers of the Minister, one could say considerably so just by looking at the introductory paragraph of the Bill. Perhaps the current Minister won’t abuse such sweeping powers. However, the potential for abuse by future Ministers is all too evident, and no amount of verbal assurances to the contrary by the hon Deputy Minister will wash. Conversely, there appears less security of tenure for existing landowners, notwithstanding the provisions of section 42E(3) with all the attendant legal, constitutional and administrative bureaucracy costs thereof.
It is a fact that the Government has vast tracts of state-owned land, a great deal of which is suitable for human occupation. Why not prioritise the distribution of such land before prevailing on unwilling landowners to part with theirs?
When people, traumatised by so much violent crime, call for a referendum on reinstating capital punishment, a common response is whether those same people would be so eager to call for constitutional reform regarding the land issue, presumably to expedite Zim-style land invasions. However, there is a crucial difference between the two issues.
For example, support for the death penalty - according to numerous impeccably researched surveys and phone-ins on radio and TV, as well as editorials and letters to the press - enjoys overwhelming support from all South Africans, rich and poor, transcending racial, cultural and political divides, and uniting the nation in support of tough measures to combat the tidal wave of crime; whereas the land issue does not enjoy similar unanimous support and instead serves to dangerously divide the nation along mainly racial lines.
Existing laws are sufficient to deal with legitimate land restitution. Therefore, the Bill under discussion is unnecessary and undesirable, and the IAM will not support the Bill. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interjections.]
Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, today we are considering a Bill that Azapo believes will accelerate the restitution of rights to land of people whose land was taken away without compensation. [Applause.]
This process demonstrates that those of us who support this Bill are willing and prepared to leave behind us the degrading past that saw uncivilised human beings taking land from indigenous inhabitants by force and other means, reducing black people to beggars in the land of their birth, yet claiming that the act of forcibly removing other human beings from land that they occupied for centuries was consistent with civilisation.
In Azapo’s terms, civilised people do not take away property that does not belong to them, let alone by force. [Applause.] Civilised people use democratic means, as demonstrated by this Bill, to acquire land. [Applause.] Those who take pleasure in denying the rightful owners of land their right to occupy their land, have no consciousness of the history of dispossession or any will to ensure the future. For these men and women the aim consists of defending the past for selfish ends.
During the portfolio committee hearings and debates on this Bill, Azapo came to the conclusion that this Bill makes a section of the white community fearful. They fear the solution prescribed in the Bill. At the same time, some of their fears are about a black Minister who cannot be trusted with expropriation powers. [Applause.]
But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the restitution of past imbalances. Azapo believes that there cannot be peace and justice in our land until black people are accorded their right to proportionate ownership of the country’s land and wealth. Azapo supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Dr J T DELPORT: Agb Adjunkspeaker, ek het ‘n vriend gehad wat graag gesê het: “Wat is die lewe nou sonder ‘n ou geestigheidjie.” Nou ek sê nie graag vir iemand hy praat onsin nie, so ek sal liewer sê die agb Du Toit het ‘n paar geestigheidjies met ons gedeel vandag. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Dr J T DELPORT: Hon Deputy Speaker, I had a friend who liked to say: ``Wat is die lewe nou sonder ‘n ou geestigheidjie?’’ [What is life without a few witticisms?] I do not like telling to anyone that he is talking nonsense, so I shall rather say that the hon Du Toit has shared a few witticisms with us today.]
But he also confirmed that this Bill tries to achieve a short cut in the whole process envisaged by the Land Claims Court. This makes that whole process obsolete, because why have a Land Claims Court adjudicating a claim if the same result can be achieved by a stroke of a pen and through expropriation?
The Constitution confines expropriation to within certain parameters and certain limits. It says you can expropriate, basically, for public purposes and for land reform, and that’s it. It does not say you can expropriate for the purposes of restitution. But the hon Minister … [Interjections.] It does not say that. Read it, give me the same amount of time, and I will challenge you in an open debate on an equal footing and I’ll tear you to pieces, hon Minister. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr J T DELPORT: Restitution can also only be brought under the umbrella of expropriation if it is part and parcel of land reform, but land reform needs to be defined. At present all we know about land reform is contained in policy statements. To empower a Minister to expropriate for the purpose of land reform is tantamount to saying that the Minister of the day may expropriate in terms of his own policy on land reform. This, surely, can never be constitutional. Such a result cannot ever be said to comply with our constitutional benchmark of rule by law, and not rule by discretion.
It is our considered view that this amending Bill falls foul of the test of constitutionality. The DA will petition the President to withhold his assent to the Bill, and, if the President does assent, other avenues will be pursued by the DA. May the day come when I can confront the hon Deputy Minister in an equal argument, with equal time, on the constitutionality of this Bill. [Interjections.]
Ek sien uit daarna, agb Du Toit. [I am looking forward to that, hon Du Toit.]
Mr D M DLALI: Deputy Speaker, I think what I need to do before I deal with this Bill is address the hon Delport. Perhaps we should check where he went to school, because it is very clear that he cannot read the Constitution. I want to draw your attention, hon Delport, to section 25(5) of the Constitution. It is very clear, in no uncertain terms. I will deal with that at a later stage.
I thought I should also deal with the view raised by the UDM. It is unfortunate that the UDM was not even part of this committee. [Interjections.] They have never seen this particular Bill. I do not know where they get the information that this Bill does not address what it is that they want addressed. It is totally wrong.
If you look at what the hon Botha said, it made me ask myself: How many farms does he own in this country? It is very clear that he is looking after his own personal interests rather than those of this country. [Interjections.] I don’t know how many farms he has in Zimbabwe, because it seems to me that he also has interests in Zimbabwe. He should rather go and concentrate on that. [Interjections.]
Before debating this issue, I thought I should mention a few issues. First, the Constitutional Court, in the Grootboom case, which is what the hon Delport mentioned, recognises access to land as a socioeconomic right. The said court drew the attention of the Government, in the Grootboom case, to the Constitution and said:
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees equal access to the land for all citizens. According to section 25(5) of the Constitution, the Government must take reasonable legislative and other measures within its available resources to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equal basis, and rights are viewed in the context of property rights that are protected under the Constitution.
Section 25(7) states that a person or a community that lost property post- 1913 due to discriminatory laws is entitled to restitution or redress. The said court in the Grootboom case concluded that provisions in the Constitution pertaining the economic and social rights entrench the right to land, equity, housing, health care, food, water and social security.
It is very clear, therefore, that the link has been made between the right of access to land and the socioeconomic right. It is also clear that it places the burden of emphasis or the responsibility on the Government and state to create conditions to enable citizens to gain access to land, on an equitable basis. We need to push back the frontiers of poverty and realise better lives for all the citizens of South Africa. Land must be given to the landless people.
It is important to explain the different powers of the Minister and the powers of the various courts or the judicial process. This amendment does not cause any confusion as far as their powers are concerned. The Minister’s jurisdiction is completely separate from the jurisdiction of the judicial system. The court or any aggrieved party will have access to a court at any given time the party wishes to go to court. This also applies in terms of section 34 of the Constitution
The exercise of powers under the Restitution of Land Rights Act is subject to review by the Land Claims Court and section 36(2). If any appropriation for redistribution or tenure reform is done in terms of the preferred general provision of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill, disputes about these appropriations will be heard in the Land Claims Court. The Minister is duty bound by the relevant legislation as far as the judicial process is concerned. The Minister cannot work arbitrarily in these matters, and the Minister does not work individually. There is always collective work. I hope it is clear that there are different jurisdictions in this case.
Why do we need this amendment? We need to accelerate land redistribution for socioeconomic reasons, for the betterment of those who were forcibly removed by the previous regime. The Constitution allows us to do just that. One presenter in our public hearings said:
Court processes in terms of the present restitution Act have proved to be lengthy and expensive. The court therefore is not a viable option for settling claims on the scale required by public demand and the targets announced by the President.
It is very clear that most people out there agreed with the amendment before this House today.
The ANC Government is determined to bring this dignity to the people. The ANC was elected by the majority of our people to speed up the transformation agenda. It is going to be re-elected by a greater majority to speed up and accelerate this transformation and push back the frontiers of poverty. Those who oppose this amendment oppose the transformation of this country, and South Africans must judge for themselves. One presenter also said:
As such claims are settled, we will increasingly be left with those claims where the current owner is intransigent and unwilling to co- operate. Even where owners are willing to sell, they are only willing to sell at a very high price, and often on certain conditions.
If you have all these claims, what do you do? You have no option but to follow the Constitution and accelerate delivery of the land to the poor.
I want to appeal to the white farmers to co-operate, to release land to the Government willingly for redistribution for the improvement of the lives of the people. [Interjections.] History will judge you otherwise. You must write your history now. Now is the time for you to do just that.
People outside these Chambers are hungry for land and are landless, while there are those who still occupy more than 70% to 80% of the land, while the majority of people are poor. They cannot feed themselves; they need food to feed themselves, not to be employed by the masters as master and servant on the farms, and be farmworkers for the rest of their lives. They want to apply what we call vukuzenzele. It is time now to show the spirit of vukuzenzele by getting land and being a landowner in your own country.
There are those who own eight or nine or ten farms. You can go on and on, and you would get tired of counting, but they do not want to give those farms to Government for redistribution at a reasonable cost. [Interjections.] Another presenter at our hearing said:
This expropriation amendment is not unconditional provided it is done as part of the law of general application and that just and equitable compensation, not necessarily market value, is paid. The Bill proposes to do both.
This matter should be seen as part of the transformation process, but it is understood that transformation is not an easy process. All of us need to join hands and deal with transformation effectively and head-on. We must expose further all those who are opposed to the Government agenda for transformation.
The other issue which was raised by most of the presenters in the public hearings is the critical question of resources and capacity within the Commission on the Restitution of Land Rights, and needs to be addressed effectively. All parties agreed on this particular issue.
The critical issue here again is that the status quo is taking a very long time to change, and it is a very expensive process before agreement can be reached between both parties, and the beneficiaries are the most affected parties in this process. Therefore, this amendment is addressing just that.
I want to appeal to AgriSA to appeal to its members to co-operate with the Government and release land or farms for the poor people to redress the inequalities on an equitable basis. I am appealing to AgriSA because they informed the committee that their members are not opposed to transformation and restitution. Therefore, the ball is in their court to show the Government by actions and deeds, and they must inform and instruct their members to do just that.
I would be failing in my duties if I did not deal with the views raised by the Transvaal Agricultural Union on this matter, together with the agricultural employers organisation, represented by their lawyers. They said:
This amendment is a declaration of war to white farmers, and the target is white commercial farmers. There will be no rule of law.
They went further to suggest that the state has huge tracts of land in the homelands and that the state must take the land in the homelands rather than the land within the urban areas.
I want to state very clearly that there is no declaration of war on white commercial farmers. If the Transvaal Agricultural Union and the agricultural employers’ organisation are opposed to this amendment, they are opposed to any restitution of land to the landless and to any transformation in this country. They further want the African majority in this country to remain in the reserves and/or former homelands, just as the previous regime implemented separate development. They oppose nonracialism in this country.
What more do they want? They need the status quo; that small minority in this country must remain in ownership of 70% to 80% of the land. The African poor majority must suffer for the rest of their lives. They must remain poor while the few landowners get richer and richer out of the sweat and blood of the poor African majority in South Africa.
We will never allow this to happen. Those who think the status quo must remain, should forget about it. This Government will proceed with transformation and accelerate the restitution of land to the landless poor. I want to warn those landowners and farmers who are intransigent and unwilling to co-operate that time is running out for them. My free advice to them is: Please co-operate.
We want land for the poor so that they can go back and farm and be commercial farmers as they used to be before they were forcibly removed, and feed themselves and their families. ``The land shall be shared amongst those who live in it.’’ We must push back the frontiers of poverty and create a better life for everyone. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, we had some very good speeches this afternoon. I am thinking of the hon Kotwal’s brilliant speech, the speech by hon Ngema and the chairperson of the committee himself. We saw how Azapo used two minutes, whereas the ACDP couldn’t. [Laughter.][Applause.]
We then had a lot of poor speeches. My summation is that the people who gave those speeches are not really interested in land restitution and land reform. They don’t know much about it and that is why they were not good. The biggest disaster perhaps, was the hon Delport. [Interjections.] I now begin to understand why during those days in Kempton Park, the old NP dropped him from their negotiation team. That is because going into negotiations with that type of constitutional nonexpertise really could land you in big trouble. [Applause.]
Do you know what the hon Delport really said here today? He said that restitution is not in the public interest, is not a public purpose and is not in the general interest of this country. [interjections.] What he said is that we can’t use expropriation under section 25 for land restitution, but we can use it for land reform.
In his understanding, other than ours, restitution is not part of land reform. In other words, what he propagated here today, is that when we buy land for land reform, we shouldn’t do in on the free market. We should start expropriating it. Is that now the policy of the DA, that expropriation for normal nonrestitution purposes, land reform purposes, should be done? That is what he said today here. That’s the implication of what he said.
Now I am sorry to say that I was not impressed by his proposals here at all. We have the very interesting situation that someone like the hon Botha came here and dished up section 34 of the Constitution, which says that when there is a conflict you can always go to the court. Perhaps I must just tell him that it is said in the Bible:
Vanwaar Gehasi? Is hy nog hierso? [Whence Gehasi? Is he still here?]
He didn’t understand a thing about this. The problem with the DA is that they don’t make any distinction. They don’t differentiate between using a court to expropriate and the fact that expropriation is always subject to adjudication. What we are saying is that the true place of expropriation is that it is an executive act. It is an administrative act. In terms of the separation of powers, it is not a thing which is primarily something that a court should do. A court can adjudicate. We don’t take away that right to adjudicate on the expropriation acts of the executive.
You must make that distinction. The failure to see that is the root cause of the problem of the hon Delport and the hon Botha. But you know what the situation is now. Let me put this in Afrikaans.
Ons het nou die situasie dat die DA hand-om-die-blaas sit met ultraregse elemente in hierdie land. [Tussenwerpsels.] Dis nou waar ons beland het. Hul posisie is dieselfde. Wat is dit waarmee ons besig is? [We now have the situation that the DA is being very friendly with ultra-rightwing elements in this country. [Interjections.] This is where we have ended up. Their position is the same. What is it that we are engaged in?]
We should never forget that we have here the results of grand apartheid. That’s why we must engage in restitution. It was the evils done under grand apartheid. Land was taken away, black spots were removed by the so-called expropriation Acts. And that is what we are correcting. Today we are actually attending part of the funeral of grand apartheid. [Applause.] We are attending the funeral of the Tomlinson Commission. We are attending the reburial of Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 218: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Balfour,
B M N; Baloyi, S F; Benjamin, J; Beukman, F; Biyela, B P; 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; Cwele, S C; Daniels, N; De
Lange, J H; Dhlamini, B W; Diale, L N; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M;
Doidge, G Q M; Du Toit, D C; 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; Gomomo, P J;
Goosen, A D; Hlengwa, M W; Hogan, B A; Jassat, E E; Jeebodh, T;
Jeffery, J H; Joemat, R R; Johnson, C B; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U;
Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kati, J Z; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M;
Komphela, B M; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K;
Lishivha, T E; Lockey, D; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli,
A N; Lyle, A G; Mabe, L L; Maduna, P M; Magazi, M N; Magubane, N E;
Magwanishe, G B; Mahlangu-Nkabinde, G L; Mahlawe, N; Mahomed, F;
Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makanda, W G; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J;
Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Malumise, M M; Mars, I; Martins, B A D; Masala,
M M; Maseka, J T; Maserumule, F T; Mashimbye, J N; Masithela, N H;
Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlanyane, H F; Maunye, M
M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, M A; Mbadi, L M; Mbombo, N D; Mbuyazi, L R;
Mdladlana, M M S; Mdlalose, M M; Meruti, V; Middleton, N S; Mkono, D G;
Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Mnumzana, S K;
Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogoba, M S; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R
J B; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Moloi, J; Mongwaketse, S J;
Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Moropa, R M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K
W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B;
Mtsweni, N S; Mutsila, I; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ncinane,
I Z; Ndzanga, R A; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-
Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, N; Ngculu, L V J;
Ngema, M V; Ngiba, B C; Ngubane, H; Ngubeni, J M; Ngwenya, M L;
Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Nqodi, S B;
Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, J T; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo,
S N; Olckers, M E; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, M N; Omar, A M; Phadagi, M
G; Phala, M J; Phohlela, S; Pillay, S; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S;
Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M;
Ratsoma, M M; Ripinga, S S; Robertsen, M O; Roopnarain, U; Rwexana, S
P; Saloojee, E (Cassim); Schneeman, G D; Seaton, S A; Seeco, M A;
Sekgobela, P S; September, R K; Sibande, M P; Sibiya, M S M; Sigwela, E
M; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, P; Skhosana, W M; Skosana, M B; Skweyiya, Z
S T; Smith, V G; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M;
Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J;
Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Van den
Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Vezi, T E; Woods, G G; Xingwana, L M
T; Xulu, M; Zondo, R P; Zulu, N E.
NOES - 38: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Bell, B G; Blaas, A; Blanché, J P I;
Bruce, N S; Camerer, S M; Da Camara, M L; Delport, J T; Dudley, C;
Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Gibson, D H M; Green, L M;
Koornhof, N J van R; Le Roux, J W; Lee, T D; Lowe, C M; Maluleke, D K;
Millin, T E; Moorcroft, E K; Mulder, C P; Nel, A H; Ntuli, R S;
Opperman, S E; Pretorius, I J; Rabie, P J; Redcliffe, C R; Schalkwyk, P
J; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Steele, M H; Swart, P S;
Swart, S N; Theron, J L; Van Deventer, F J.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time.
ABUSE OF TRAVEL AND PARMED FACILITIES BY MR M B NTULI
(Ruling)
The SPEAKER: Hon members, before we proceed with the rest of the business of the House, I want to deal with a disciplinary matter concerning the hon Mr Ntuli, a member of this House. I had asked the ANC whips to try to ensure his presence.
Allegations were brought to my attention that the member had abused both his travel facilities and his Parmed facilities. As is my custom, I called in the member - he was accompanied by a whip - and informed him of the allegations. I then referred the allegations to the Disciplinary Committee to conduct an investigation and advise me on appropriate action. The hon Mr Doidge was appointed to chair the committee as the Deputy Speaker, who normally chairs the Disciplinary Committee, is the chairperson of the Parmed Management.
The Disciplinary Committee has over the past few weeks repeatedly interviewed Mr Ntuli and members of his family, and received affidavits. The committee presented its report to me this morning. I thank them for the expeditious and thorough manner in which they have carried out their responsibilities. I have based my decision in this case on the findings and recommendations of the committee.
The specific charges which the committee investigated were:
Firstly, regarding members’ travel facilities, the member had registered dependants who did not qualify in terms of Parliament’s official policy; had allowed adults to travel on child dependants’ vouchers; and had allowed nonregistered persons to travel on dependants’ vouchers. As far as we have been able to establish so far, the amount involved exceeds R56 100. Secondly, concerning Parmed facilities, the member was charged with defrauding Parliament and its members by allowing his fiancée to receive treatment and confinement in his daughter’s name, and allowing a nondependant to receive medical treatment in the name of another daughter.
I had hoped that Mr Ntuli would have appeared before the House, as requested. Nonetheless, I will proceed.
The committee has reported that, after lengthy hearings, the member admitted infringement of the rules in relation to all the charges and pleaded guilty to defrauding Parliament on each specific charge.
The committee has reported further that, after he had agreed to provide evidence under oath, he initially misled the committee, even after he had been warned that lying to the committee would constitute contempt of Parliament. The committee therefore reported that it found the member additionally to be in contempt of Parliament and that it regarded this in a very serious light.
The member, by his actions, has wilfully breached the public trust and undermined the integrity of the House and, indeed, the entire democratic process. There are constitutional limitations to the steps the House can take in such circumstances, but as Speaker of the House I must inform you that such actions are totally unacceptable. I therefore, in this public forum, issue a severe reprimand to Mr Ntuli for his reprehensible conduct in respect of the abuse of travel facilities and medical aid facilities and, in particular, for making himself guilty of contempt of Parliament by lying to the committee and persisting to do so under oath.
I impose the following specific penalties in respect of the abuse of travel facilities:
(1) The exact extent of travel abuse will be identified and recovered from the member; and
(2) all travel benefits for the member and his dependants are immediately withdrawn for the remainder of the term in Parliament.
Relevant information and documentation relating to this abuse of both travel facilities and Parmed facilities is being referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the political party, the ANC, for further investigation.
In compliance with a specific request of the committee, I report to the House their view, which I fully endorse, that the member is not worthy of holding public office. This sentiment will also be pertinently referred to the political party for attention.
Hon members, that is my decision. The penalties will be imposed.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: There are four hon Ntulis in this House. Three of them are gentlemen and one of them is a lady. I think, just for the purposes of the record, one should identify the Mr Ntuli concerned as Mr M B Ntuli.
The SPEAKER: Order! It is Mr M B Ntuli, but there is some dispute as to whether it is B M or M B. [Laughter.] Thank you for that clarity. We will ensure that penalties are not imposed against the incorrect member.
SECTIONAL TITLES AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
There was no debate.
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, if you are leaving the House, will you do so quietly, please.
Hon members and hon Whips, I think you should avoid the disruption of a vote in this House. To have this kind of thing shows a great deal of disrespect. Please ensure, if your members must leave, that at least they wait until the Bill has been read a second time before they walk out, and do so quietly.
Bill read a second time.
SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
(Second Reading debate)
There was no debate.
Bill read a second time.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AGENTS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
There was no debate.
Bill read a second time.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate) UMPHATHISWA WEZABASEBENZI: Somlomo, lo Mthetho uYilwayo ndiwuthi thaca kule Ndlu namhlanje ubuyisa iinkumbulo ezibuhlungu nezidandathekisa umphefumlo, ngakumbi kubasebenzi abamnyama ababengabandakanyeki ngenxa yebala labo. Urhulumente wengcinezelo wayekhuthalele ukukhusela amalungelo abelungu.
Umbutho wesizwe, iNkongolo, i-ANC, wafunga wamunc’ iintupha, wasonga imikhono wangena edabini, esilwela inkululeko yabantu beli lizwe. Waqula uNkongolo, wabinza ngomkhonto, wabinzisisa, waxikixa waxovula, waxhifiza egazini ngenxa yamalungelo abantu abamnyama beli lizwe.
Urhulumente wengcinezelo akazange akwazi ukumelana nabasebenzi ababelugcwabevu ngumsindo. Waxhoma izandla, wanikezela, lungongoza uvalo.
Naxa banikezelayo, bayicutha imali yale ngxowa ukuze abasebenzi abamnyama bohlulelane ngobugcwabalalana nemvilikitshi. Le ngxowa-mali iye yashokoxeka, bashiyeka abasebenzi bebambelele esidleleni. Kuqengqeleke iminyaka le ngxowa-mali intsintsitheka okomlilo wamalongwe amanzi. Yonke le nto isisenzo sangabom esinjongo ikukukhama lo mzi ontsundu.
URhulumente wabantu okhokelwa ngumbutho wesizwe, i-ANC, uye wangenelela wayiguqula le meko. Kukule nguqulelo ke ekuthe kwabonakala kulithuba lokuba bonke abasebenzi abasisichenge sokuxhatshazwa, njengabo basebenza emakhaya, bafumane ukubandakanyeka, okokuqala ezimbalini, kulo mthetho uYilwayo. Kwakunyanzelekile ukuba sikwenze oku ukuze imeko yemali yale ngxowa iguquke noko imimitheke. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Chairperson, the Bill that I am laying before this House brings back painful memories which torment the soul, especially among black people who were not included because of the colour of their skin. The apartheid government was diligently protecting the rights of the white people.
The national movement, the ANC, seriously took an oath, rolled up its sleeves and joined the struggle, fighting for the freedom of the people of this country. The ANC geared itself up, pierced with the spear, and did so thoroughly; did trampling work and carried on with the battle although bleeding, and that because of the rights of the black people of this country.
The apartheid government could not stand against the vicious anger of the workers. It raised its arms in the air and gave up, whilst the heart was pounding.
And when they gave up, they decreased the funds in the coffers so that workers would have to share the meagre amount left. This fund became drained and workers were left holding onto their cheeks in despair. Over the years the fund went through turbulent times like when wet dung cannot catch fire. All this is a deliberate act intended to cause hardship for the black community.
The people’s Government that is led by the national movement, the ANC, intervened and changed this situation. It was with this change that it became apparent that all workers who are at risk of being abused, like domestic workers, had to be included in this Bill, for the first time in history. It was imperative that we do this so that the financial standing of this fund could change and become sound.]
Two years ago we tabled before this House a new Unemployment Insurance Bill and promised you that the promised legislation was aimed at repealing the old Act, which was discriminatory in its application and spurious in its fiscal logic. We indicated then that unless we took the path we were proposing, the fund would perpetually remain in the red and continue to place a perpetual burden on the fiscus.
Indeed, Parliament heeded our call and agreed to repeal the apartheid-style Unemployment Insurance Act of 1966 through the enactment of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 2001. We’ve now had two years of implementing the new Act, during which we have made major gains, but, as fate would have it, we have also learnt lessons as we were implementing our turnaround strategy.
The proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act are part of the successful turnaround strategy being implemented by the fund, based on four main pillars, namely legislative reform, information technology, human resource and institutional restructuring. The successful and ongoing implementation of this strategy has already resulted in an increase in the fund’s income from R2,1 billion in 2001 to R3,8 billion in 2002-03. The fund also continues to provide benefits to unemployed workers.
Despite the fact that 2002-03 saw a decline in unemployment and illness benefits, the UIF experienced an increase in benefits paid to workers on maternity leave and the dependants of deceased contributors. A total of R2,3 billion was paid out to unemployed workers while over three million commercial employees have been registered with the fund.
The fund has a surplus of R1,4 billion from a previous string of deficits. As part of the turnaround strategy, we were able to contain expenditure in an attempt to return to financial health and to create the financial strength needed to bring about lasting change.
Part of the new policy framework is an annual actuarial evaluation. In the 2002-03 evaluation the actuary concluded that the fund was in a sound financial state on a cash flow basis. In line with sound financial practice, the fund has started to implement a reserve policy with effect from the 2002-03 financial year.
As I mentioned, one of the pillars of the turnaround strategy was the implementation of this new legislation, which saw the fund widen its coverage, increase its revenue base and also improve compliance levels. To date more than 560 000 domestic employers have registered and the details of over 430 000 domestic workers have been captured on the data base. This can only be done by the only party in this country that can better the lives of our people, the ANC.
With regard to the Bill before this House today, it provides for the following amendments: the removal of the definition of the CCMA in section 1 of the Act will mean that the CCMA will no longer have jurisdiction over UIF appeals, and regional appeal committees will take over this function; the removal of the definition of seasonal workers will give this category of employees coverage. That again can only be done by the movement of the people of this country, the ANC, because the previous exclusion was unfair and, in my view, discriminatory.
With the amendments we also exclude `public servants’ as defined under section 1(1) of the Public Service Act of 1994. This matter was referred to the Public Service Bargaining Chamber. That’s where the issue must be raised.
The amendments also address a situation of the multiple-employment relationship of domestic workers and bring in a concept of partial unemployment for those workers with more than one employer. This amendment is aimed at ensuring that a domestic worker who is employed by more than one employer and loses one or more of those employers shall be entitled to benefits.
The amendments will also recognise that unemployment may arise for domestic workers in the event of the death of an employer. The Bill further streamlines the benefits to allow claims officers to top up benefits for those employees who continue to receive income from their employers whilst unemployed as a result of maternity, ill health or, as required by law, to take adoption.
As you, hon members, would have noted, the Bill that I place before you today does not seek to overhaul what we all believe is an appropriate policy framework for unemployment insurance, but only seeks to sharpen the policy instrument we have devised as our contribution. Should these amendments be adopted, they shall go a long way towards building on the successes I have outlined above.
I beseech all of you, hon members, to support this Bill in order to strengthen the current legislative instrument in meeting the needs of fellow South Africans who find themselves in a situation where the only place they can turn to for relief is the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr C R REDCLIFFE: Chairperson, the DA supports the amendments to the Act, such as the inclusion of seasonal workers and the exclusion of public servants from UIF benefits, which also addresses the issue of multiple employers of domestic workers and some of the technical aspects involved. I will not go into detail about these amendments, which are an improvement to the Act, and which the hon Minister has already elaborated on.
The one amendment which we wholeheartedly support is the establishment of regional appeals committees which will handle appeals against decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner.
The present position is that a person who is entitled to benefits under the Act may appeal to the Appeals Committee of the Unemployment Insurance Board, if that person is aggrieved by a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner or a claims officer, and also to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration.
These appeals will now be decentralised to provinces. We sincerely hope that appeals will ensure greater efficiency in the processing of claims. At the moment some of these claims take months to be processed.
I have one case in which I have made representations to the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner about a Ms Surita Coetzer of Saldanha, who has been trying for almost 18 months to get her benefits. She applied for benefits on 23 April 2002 and her application was refused by the Vredenberg suboffice in July 2002, in terms of section 16(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 2001. She lodged an appeal in July 2002 and the appeal was received by the head office in Pretoria. The case is boxed in between the regional office and Pretoria and has not been finalised.
I have also made representations in respect of another case, which took more than a year to be finalised. From the feedback I get from the public, this seems to be the norm. This is quite unacceptable. I must concede that the office of the commissioner, as well as the parliamentary liaison officer of the department have been very helpful, but it should not take the intercession of a member of Parliament to resolve these cases, sir. The system must work properly and efficiently.
I would suggest that the department evaluates its day-to-day operations in respect of service delivery. What has happened to Batho Pele?
The long delays in the payment of UIF benefits to applicants are not only confined to appeals. They also affect ordinary applications for benefits. Not so long ago, the Cape Argus reported on a case of a person who has been waiting for more than 11 months. People are sent from pillar to post. Most of the applicants are normally in dire straits and hopeful that their benefits will be paid out in time.
These are not isolated cases. This seems to be the norm. People complain regularly that they have to deal with unhelpful and sometimes arrogant officials. To get through to the office of the department telephonically is sometimes an impossibility. It is high time that the Minister jacked up his department.
In his ministerial briefing last week, he said, and I quote: “The picture is not bleak because Government is on track in delivering a better life for all.’’ People are not experiencing the better life for all on the ground. He must stop sitting in his ivory tower and go to his regional offices to see what is happening. People deserve an enhanced service delivery. They need a better life, not empty political rhetoric. Thank you. Mr S A MSHUDULU: Chairperson, hon members of Parliament, distinguished guests and the nation at large, I stand here in support of the Bill on behalf of the ANC. The ANC in Government has sought and continues to seek to confront the challenges of poverty and underdevelopment, and to ensure a better life for all through a comprehensive, people-centred, people-driven programme of social transformation. It is also unquestionable that the ANC is a leading force in social transformation.
In its 51st national conference in Stellenbosch, the ANC resolved to continue with plans towards a comprehensive social security system through an ongoing review of existing social security measures, such as the UIF and social grants.
Chairperson, for this reason, it is important that we educate some of the members, like Mr Redcliffe here, to the effect that the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill is intended to transform the unemployment insurance, and what necessitated its amendment were the high levels of unemployment and joblessness that are prevalent in the economy. Unemployment insurance provides adequate and accessible benefits, particularly to vulnerable low-paid workers, as mentioned by our Minister. Its finances were structured, as he indicated earlier, in such a way as to ensure an adequate flow of contributions from workers, employers and the state.
As you know, people were using the old blue card. From the old, we changed to a sustainable component of the postapartheid labour market which is anchored on the progressive principles of redistribution and solidarity. High-income, low-risk employees are brought under the ambit of the fund, and Government has firmly committed itself as an underwriter of the fund, as the Minister mentioned earlier.
It was also restructured in such a manner that it is viable. However, the UIF can only provide short-term relief to those who have been recently employed, and this resulted from the distortions in the South African labour market that tend to perpetuate job insecurity, hence there was a need for research.
It is important, Chairperson, to note that the Minister did set up a task team that carried out research as well as a comparative study to ensure that even the most vulnerable are covered. This House must also note that last year, as the Minister correctly confirmed, the Bill was amended to address the following shortcomings: The weak and nonviable nature of coverage; weak enforcement and compliance; lack of financial sustainability
- he has given figures; the rigid benefit structure; discrimination against certain categories, such as pregnant women; and the lack of a comprehensive database.
Through the UIF task team, there were recommendations that led to the extension of UIF coverage to all workers by delinking maternity benefits from unemployment benefits. Furthermore, the task team put in place progressive and graduated benefits. As you would know, those who are high earners are now subsidising those who are low earners.
Furthermore, the task team adopted the existing structure with regard to unemployment, maternity, illness, adoption and dependence. It also put in place stricter enforcement and compliance measures with a punitive element, as well as a database. I must commend the Department of Labour for efficiently implementing the programme. Today we have a computer system that is easily accessible.
Chairperson, one also has to commend the department and the commission for their excellence and diligence, more so on account of the statistics that have been given. This happened at a time when - I will give figures - levels of unemployment were rising. In 1995 unemployment rose from 16% to 27%, and it went up to 30,5% in September 2002.
These figures also relate to some 4,8 million people who were actively looking for work. As much as 53% of these were African women who were unemployed, of whom 75% were under 30 years. What this means is that the provision of unemployment insurance does assist in bettering the lives of the people.
Chairperson, we are, therefore, faced with threats in this country: rising unemployment, an increasing informal sector, increasing casualisation and, of course, part-time workers. There is a need to speedily fine-tune the Unemployment Insurance Act for smooth, effective implementation. I do not have to repeat the amendments which were effected in section 1, as the hon Minister has taken you through them.
Before I close off, I would like to go to the DA. If this was a work situation, I would say Mr Redcliffe has been misplaced, because he does not understand the subject he’s trying to address. The Department of Labour, hon member, is structurally or such a nature that its power is at the labour centre. Services are decentralised so that they are close to where people are.
Now, I do not know if you want to argue on the basis of centralisation of that department at national office. We have provincial offices that also rely on labour centres, which are called centres of excellence. I do not know in what way, hon member, you see yourself working effectively. You do not have manners.
So what I’m saying is that I think in the committee … [Interjections.] I’m not a parrot like you. So, what I’m saying, Chairperson, is that …
… abasebenzi bamvile uMhlekazi uMdladlana xa ebesithi abona basebenzi basokolayo baza kukwazi ukuba baphumelele ngale inshorensi ejongene nentswelangqesho. [… workers certainly heard Mr Mdladlana when he said that the most struggling and suffering workers will be able to survive through this insurance policy that is aimed at catering for their needs when they are no longer in employment.]
Hape e tla kgona hore e fihlelle ho bao ba kojwana-di-mahetleng. Re tlohele bana ba sa tsebeng letho, ba ntseng ba re senyetsa nako mona. Ke a leboha. (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)
[It will also be able to reach the poor people. Let us forget about these people who do not know anything, who are just wasting our time. Thank you.]
Mr N S MIDDLETON: Chairperson, hon members, besengilahlekile la ngingazi ukuthi sikhuluma ngani manje [I was lost, not knowing what we are talking about]. I have come back and now I know what we are talking about. Amendments to this Unemployment Insurance Act, Act 63 of 2001, came into effect on April 2002. The Minister appointed the task team to investigate and make recommendations regarding the administration of the Act in respect of domestic and seasonal workers.
The amending Bill must be read in conjunction with the mission statement of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which states that the UIF strives to contribute to the alleviation of poverty in South Africa by providing effective short-term unemployment insurance to all workers who qualify for unemployment and related benefits and by assisting them in finding re- employment.
The amending Bill now being discussed today seeks to regulate the principal Act in respect of domestic and seasonal workers. The amendment further seeks to explain how domestic workers who are employed by more than one employer can be accommodated by this amendment. It further seeks to clarify the position of a domestic worker, should an employer die and the worker be left without a job. It clarifies what provisions should be made in order to deal with such cases when the occasion arises.
The IFP, in accordance with its policy of decentralisation, is pleased to note that this amendment proposes the establishment of regional committees of the board. I am glad that the Minister has acceded to my request that such a board be established. This will serve to expedite the cases of those persons who are dissatisfied with the rulings of either the claims officer or the unemployment insurance commissioners.
Because of the very complicated and complex situation which we inherited in regard to working conditions - particularly of the domestic workers in our country - I believe that it will be necessary, from time to time, to regulate the working conditions of our domestic workers. It will also be necessary to come to this House, from time to time, in order to regulate working conditions, not only in respect of domestic workers, but all workers, particularly in view of the HIV epidemic. The IFP supports this amendment to the UIF. [Applause.]
Miss T E ḼISHIVHA: Ndi a livhuwa Mudzulatshidulo na Miraḓo yoṱhe ya Buthano ḽa Lushaka. [Thank you, Chairperson and all members of the National Assembly.]
I will start by thanking the Minister of Labour for leading his department’s team that engaged in an education campaign around Pretoria in a train. During this campaign pamphlets were distributed, outlining the registration of domestic workers and all matters relating to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. People were also taken through the registration process. We want to thank the ANC-led Government for bringing about all these developments, to change the lives of ordinary workers.
The UIF Bill is part of the poverty alleviation of domestic workers, whether they are unemployed, on maternity leave or sick. This Bill provides a change from the apartheid UIF, which did not cater for women. In addition, this Bill provides an increase of unemployment days from 180 to 238 days.
Mushumi muṅwe na muṅwe ane a shuma awara dzine dza fhira 24 nga ṅwedzi, u ya nga mulayo, u na pfanelo dza u ṅwaliswa. Ngoho ndi ya uri hu vhe na vhutshilo ha khwine kha vhathu vhoṱhe.
Mushumi u bvisa 1% na mutholi-vho a bvisa 1%, dza ṱangana dza ita 2%. Mutholi u tea u vhona zwauri u badela heyo tshelede phanḓa ha ḓuvha ḽa vhusumbe ḽa ṅwedzi muṅwe na muṅwe. Vhane vha sa vhe na ndavha na vhutshilo ha vhathu, vha pfa u nga vha khou tambudzwa kana u fhungudzelwa maanḓa avho. Arali vha tshi nga lavhelesa hoyu Muvhuso wo rangwaho phanḓa nga ANC, vha ḓo vhona hu na phambano na wo fhiraho, ngauri hoyo mulayo zwa zwino, vho u ita nga nḓila ine vhashai vha vha vhone vhane vha wana tshelede ine ya ḓivhalea, zwi tshi khou itiswa nga u sa shuma.
Vhashumi vha mahayani kha vha vhone zwauri vhatholi vhavho vho vha ṅwalisa, ngauri muthu u na pfanelo dza u ṅwaliswa nga mutholi wawe. Kha vha ye ofisini dza tsini arali mutholi wavho a songo vha ṅwalisa. Ofisi dzi hone dza Muhasho wa Mishumo fhethu hunzhi kha mavundu ashu. Ri ḓo dovha hafhu ra vha na “sectoral determination” ine ya vha ya vhalimi. Ndi ine ya sumbedza vho rabulasi kushumele kwa vhathu na nzudzanyo ya miholo, yo katela vhashumeli vha mahayani na vhalindi. Vhashumi vha mabulasini zwino vha na ndinganyelo ya miholo ine ya vha ḓivhazwakale kha Afurika Tshipembe ngauri ndi lwa u thoma izwo zwi tshi itea. Hezwi ndi mishumo ya ANC hune ya kanda hone.
Vhashumi vha mabulasini vha fanela u badelwa u ya nga awara dze vha shuma dzone. Fhedzi, vhathu kha vha dzhiele nzhele zwauri vhashumi vha mabulasini vha ḓo hola tshelede u ya nga hune vha vha hone, ngauri hune ra dzula hone ho fhambana. Hu na “Area” A na “Area” B. Hezwi zwi ri nea tsumbo ya u sa lingana ha mimasipala yashu. “Area” A, ndi thungo ya Johannesburg na ḓorobo dzine dza nga sa Cape Town, ngeno “Area B” i tshi katela mimasipala yashu yoṱhe. Arali vhathu vho thetshelesa zwavhuḓi, a hu na hune ha pfi vhathu kha vha thathiwe. Hezwi ndi u tou itela uri vhathu vha tshile zwavhuḓi.
Hei ndinganyiso ya miholo ya vhashumi vha mabulasini vhane vha shuma awara dzine dza vha nṱha ha 27 nga vhege, vha hola R800 nga ṅwedzi kha “Area” A, ngeno hu uri kha “Area” B vha tshi hola R650 nga ṅwedzi. Ra dovha ra vha na vhathu vhane vha shuma awara dzine dza vha fhasi ha 27 nga vhege. Havho vha wana R4,10 nga awara kha “Area” A ngeno kha “Area” B vha tshi wana R3,33 nga awara. Hezwi ndi zwiswa kha vhashumi vha mabulasini nahone zwi khou ḓiswa nga Muvhuso wa vhathu wa ANC.
Mutholi u fanela u kokodza tshelede kha mushumi ho vha na thendelano maelana na zwithu zwine zwa nga sa tshelede dza u badela madzangano a vhashumi. Ri fanela u funza vhashumi havha uri hu na tshelede dzi songo fanelaho u kokodziwa, dzine dza fana na dza dzidzhunifomo, maovaralo, zwithu zwa u ḓitsireledza na zwiḽiwa zwine vha ḽa musi vhe mishumoni. Hezwi musi vhashumi vha tshi badela vhudzulo, kha vha vhone zwauri thanga a dzi ni, maḓi, muḓagasi na mabunga zwi hone, ngauri ANC i ṱoḓa u vhona mutakalo wa vhathu u wavhuḓi. Ndi ngazwo ri tshi ri: “Better life for all.”
Vhashumi vha fanela u badelwa “overtime”, “public holidays” na dzi Swondaha. Vhashumi vha mabulasini na vhone vha fanela u vha na tshifhinga tsha u awela. Hezwi zwoṱhe ri a zwi ḓivha zwauri kha vhunzhi ha vho rabulasi a zwi ngo vha fara zwavhuḓi. Vhaṅwe vha khou pandela vhashumi vhavho. Ri tshi ḓa kha mushumo, musi u tshi fheliswa nga mutholi, u tea uri a fhe mushumi nḓivhadzo. Arali mushumi a tshi shuma nga tshifhinga tsha nḓivhadzo ya u imiswa u shuma, u fanela u badelwa muholo wawe wo teaho. Mutholi u fanela u nea mutholiwa ṱhanziela ya mushumo musi mushumo wo fhela.
“Sectoral determination” u ya nga Muhasho wa Vhashumi, a i tendi ṅwana ane a vha fhasi ha miṅwaha ya 15 a tshi shuma. Zwoṱhe hezwi, zwi khou itwa nga ANC ine ya khou lingedza uri vhathu vha vhofhololwe kha vhupuli hune vha bva khaho. Ndi ngazwo Minisiṱa vho sumbedza zwauri arali muthu a sa tevhedza heyo milayo miswa, vha ḓo mu sala murahu. Hu na tshelede ine ya badelwa musi muthu a songo tevhedza milayo.
Zwipikiṱere zwa Muhasho wa Vhashumi, sa tsumbo, vho no ḓi dalela mavunḓu maṱaṋu ane a vha Kwazulu-Natal, Gauteng, Free State, Mpumalanga na Northern Cape. Vho dzhena kha vhashumeli vha linganaho 1 600, vho wana uri 25% fhedzi ndi yone ine ya khou tevhedza mulayo. Zwa zwino arali ra sedza, ri na vhathu vhane vha lingana 560 000 vho no ḓi ṅwalisaho vhashumi vhavho. Ra dovha hafhu ra vha na vhathu vhane vha lingana 430 000, vhane pfanelo dzavho dzo no ḓi fariwa nga dzi khomphwutha. Hoyu ndi mushumo muhulwane we Muhasho wa zwa Vhashumi wa farana nawo. Uya nga ANC, vhadzulapo vhoṱhe vha Afurika Tshipembe, naho zwi tshi konḓa … [Tshifhinga tsho fhela.] [U fhululedza.] (Translation of Tshivenḓa paragraphs follows.)
[By law, each and every worker who works more than 24 hours per month has the right to be registered. The truth is that there is a better life for all.
Both the worker and the employer have to contribute 1% each. The employer must see to it that he or she pays that money before the seventh day of each and every month. Those who do not care about the lives of people feel as if they are being ripped off. When you look at the ANC-led Government, you will notice how it differs from the previous dispensation. At the moment, this legislation makes it possible for the poverty-stricken people to get adequate money should they not be working.
Domestic workers must see to it that their employers register them because they have that right. An employee must go to the nearest office to get registered, if the employer has not done so on his or her behalf. There are numerous offices of the Department of Labour in our provinces. Moreover, we also have the sectoral determination which takes care of farmers. It shows farmers the conditions under which farmworkers must work, as well as their minimum wage. It also includes conditions for domestic workers and security guards. Farmworkers now have a minimum wage. This is making history in South Africa because this is the first time this is happening. This is all because of the ANC.
Farmworkers must be remunerated according to the hours they have worked. But people must take into consideration that farmworkers are paid according to the areas in which they work, because they are different. We have area A and area B. This shows us that our municipalities are not equal. Area A is around cities like Johannesburg and Cape Town, whereas area B comprises all our municipalities. People should listen attentively: There are no areas where people are supposed to be evicted. This is promoting a better life for all.
Farmworkers who work more than 27 hours per week get a minimum wage of R800 per month in area A, whereas in area B they get R650 per month. There are people who work less than 27 hours per week. These workers get R4,10 per hour in area A, whereas in area B they get R3,33 per hour. This is something new to the farmworkers and it has been implemented by the ANC, which is the Government for the people.
The employer must deduct money from the employee’s salary according to the agreement in order to pay for the organisations for workers. We must teach these workers that there is money which is not supposed to be deducted from their salaries, such as money for uniforms, overalls, security and the food that they eat when they are working. When employees pay for their accommodation, the employers must see to it that the roof is not leaking and that there is water, electricity and toilets. The ANC is concerned about the good health of all people. That is why we say: A better life for all.
Workers must be paid for overtime, or when working on public holidays and Sundays. Farmworkers must get vacation leave too. We know that because of all these changes farmers are not happy. Some of them are even dismissing their employees. When the employer dismisses an employee, he or she must give him or her notice. An employee must be paid for working during the notice period. An employer must issue an employee with a certificate of service after completion of the notice period.
According to the Department of Labour, a sectoral determination does not allow a child who is under the age of 15 years to work. The ANC is doing all this so that people can be liberated from the previous bondage. That is why the Minister indicated that people will be monitored if they do not comply with the new legislation. There is a penalty which has to be paid when people do not comply with the legislation. For example, the inspectors of the Department of Labour have visited five provinces, namely KwaZulu- Natal, Gauteng, Free State, Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape. They visited 1 600 employers and discovered that only 25% are complying with the legislation. At the present moment, we have 560 000 people who have registered their employees. We also have 430 000 people whose data has been captured on the computers.
This is an enormous task which the Department of Labour is engaged in. According to the ANC, all South African citizens … [Time expired.] [Applause.]]
Mr S PILLAY: Chairperson, this Bill seeks to further rectify a problem that has been in existence for hundreds of years. There is no doubt that there will always be a tiny segment of people whose aim will be to oppose such remedial measures as defined in this amendment, and their criticism will remain without any foundation.
In short this Bill deals with some administrative issues of a technical nature to ensure that domestic workers who work for more than one employer do not suffer adversely if they lose one or more jobs, even if that loss comes about due to the death of their employer.
This Bill again considers the matter of simplifying and bringing services closer to the people by establishing provincial committees that will manage all appeals, instead of centralising the process in Pretoria. This Bill further empowers the Minister to appoint this committee in terms of objective criteria. The question that arises is: Should the new New NP support or reject this amendment?
The Commissioner of the UIF has shown a clear commitment to better the lives of one of the most vulnerable sectors of society. Again we need to be realistic when we debate this issue. The overwhelming majority of domestic workers are black women and they are very vulnerable. In our view if anybody opposes this Bill or the actions of the Minister, it would be based on racism in that they do not wish these vulnerable workers to be protected. In any event the wish will remain just that, a wish.
The reality is that this Bill is supported by all people of goodwill. Furthermore, the decentralisation of the appeals committee is a direct indication that no one should take any statements seriously that warn of centralisation. Such warnings remind me of the so-called swart gevaar. Today we hear strident calls of a one-party state. How can any sensible person believe that, when decentralisation is the order of the day. I take the train of thought further, that any scaremongering about centralisation is nothing more than a senseless political ploy designed to undermine this democracy and divide our society along racial lines. This Bill clearly sets out a process of decentralisation. Of course, the New NP fully supports this Bill.
A very significant factor is the recognition of the fact that domestic workers can and may be partially employed. This definition allows the partially employed, who are exposed to all sorts of problems, to be able to claim part compensation from that fund, thereby causing the circumstances of the worker not to be worse than they were when they were previously fully employed.
This Bill therefore makes provision for domestic workers with more than one employer to be accommodated and provides for the payment of benefits under certain specified conditions. This Bill also makes provision for domestic workers who are entitled to obtain unemployment benefits where the employer or contributor dies. It is envisaged that this claim could be honoured within 48 hours and that is very encouraging. Thank you. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the MF is one of the most delighted parties over the focus on labour rights for domestic and seasonal workers. These exploited trades require representation earnestly.
Domestic labour is often exploited to the depths comparable to slavery, which is a major contravention of the human rights that our democracy tirelessly works to uphold. Low wages, poor working conditions, exposure, burdensome hours and vast definitions of duties see many poverty-stricken persons slaving for hours to earn a living. Provisions introduced to manage these have been most liberating. However, it is hoped that the employers of domestic and seasonal workers will respect the law, and the earnest method to ensure adherence to these must be firmly inculcated.
In view of the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill the MF finds the provisions made in this document in respect of domestic and seasonal workers adequate. It is, however, hoped that a balance between the employer and the employee’s rights will be maintained, so that no one party may feel that their rights are being undermined. The MF supports the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Mr D A A OLIFANT: Mr Chairperson, my dear friend the hon Redcliffe is certainly living in a dream world. I must tell you, the Minister has just shown you an award … [Interjections.] It does not matter! Somebody appreciates him and his department very much. He is a very, very hard- working individual and so is his department.
You say the man lives in an ivory tower and does not work. Not so long ago the director-general came to the portfolio committee with an in-depth presentation about the problems and the restructuring of the department, as well as how the department now operates, which we all - including yourself
- had great appreciation for.
The commissioner came not so long ago and explained to you why we are going to have these amendments. They are meant to speed up the process of delivery. Now you had one case for which you probably waited for 11 months, as you claim. However, one wonders how much truth there is in that. You must go to the area; there are labour centres right across Cape Town and right across South Africa. If you want to, you can come to the one in Atlantis. We will show you how effective we and the department are.
It certainly does work, because part of our work as parliamentarians is also to do oversight work. But it is clear that you are not doing so, that is why you do not know that these centres are working. And they explained to us on numerous occasions but you just refuse to listen, you refuse to understand. Maybe at some point your party must train you in order to understand how the issues are dealt with in our department.
I am not going to repeat all the things that everybody has said because we spoke about the whole question of the appeals committee and the question of the rights of domestic workers and farmworkers. There is one clear issue in this amendment that really goes to my heart, and I just want to tell all those employees of domestic workers: Please register your domestic workers, because the law is so effective now that if you die, your employee immediately enjoys unemployment insurance benefits. And that is important. In the past when an employer died the individual employee was simply lost and there was no assistance for this particular person.
I think that is the kind of effect, hon Redcliffe, that this particular Minister and the department are giving to the people and the lives of our communities. I think when we really speak about pushing back the frontiers of poverty this is what in fact we are saying. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Chairperson, the hon member from the DA says that we are living in ivory towers. The unfortunate thing is that he has only referred to one or two people. I have conducted imbizos in all the provinces of the country, and I am continuing to do so, because I don’t live in an ivory tower like him. I don’t know what has happened to him, because he is such a … - let me not use the word. [Laughter.]
If you are aware of any person who is arrogant and silly in the Department of Labour as you say, I want the name of that person before I leave this House today. I want to know the address of that labour centre that you are talking about, because I am not the Minister of Labour for nothing. Remember, you are talking to a former principal of a school who knows how to deal with ill- discipline, not like that man who is sitting over there.
Secondly, it is very important that I say to the hon members that this department is continuously being nominated as part of the top 300 companies. We are not a company, we are the Department of Labour, but we are continuously being nominated as part of the 300 top companies in this country, because of our performance on the ground. [Applause.]
It can only happen if you belong to the ANC. [Interjections.] [Applause.] That is precisely why it is very important that people understand that those who oppose the ANC are opposed to democracy. [Applause.] Those who are opposed to the ANC are opposed to nonsexism in this country. Those who are opposed to the ANC are opposed to employment equity. Those who are opposed to the ANC are opposed to skills development, what we call the skills revolution, in this country. So, watch out when you are saying you are opposing the ANC, because it means you are opposing the majority of the people of this country, 40 million of whom happen to be black. [Applause.]
The gentleman who was talking here happens to be a black man as well. I don’t know why he is opposed to a party of this nature, the ANC, which incidentally was established in 1912. Hon member, we have more than 90 years of experience in resistance, and we will continue to resist you and your opposition to the transformation of this country. We will fight tooth and nail to make sure that we better the lives of the people of this country. [Interjections.] Your mouth is so big that the members of the DA out there … [Interjections.] It is because of your noise that I am saying these things, so that you can keep your members quiet. You must die in peace, so that you should become a ``Death Alliance’’ indeed. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
I want to thank the hon members who are supporting this Bill - including the DA, by the way, even though they say that we should scrap the Labour Relations Act. This is the Labour Relations Act, and yet you are saying it must be scrapped. You are saying scrap Nedlac. Today, I don’t know, because you have supported the previous amendments, and you are again supporting this amendment. Why do you go outside and shout the opposite, and say ``Scrap the Labour Relations Act?’’ What else are you offering after scrapping the Labour Relations Act? Nothing, my dear friend. But anyway, thank you very much. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Ndiyaphangela namhlanje. [I am working today.] Chairperson and hon members, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to place before this House the Skills Development Amendment Bill for consideration and adoption. It is the first time that I am asking this august House to amend this piece of legislation that was passed in 1998.
In the five years that have passed since then, literally millions of people have been trained under its banner. Many of these people have been the workers who keep our economy running in all the mines, offices, shops and factories of our nation. With the training they have received we believe that the productivity and competitiveness of their workplaces, as well as our own employment security and prospects, have been improved.
In addition, hundreds of thousands of unemployed people, young and old, have also been trained to find work in the formal labour market, to create their own income-generating opportunity and to participate in social development projects. The aim is to improve the lives of their communities and the households that constitute it. The skills revolution that the legislation was intended to unleash is indeed well underway. The amendment sets out to remedy the challenges that have had to be faced in the process of implementation.
Whilst many of the achievements that I have just alluded to are the product of hard work on the part of many of the Sector Education and Training Authorities or Setas, as they are called, it is a matter of public record that some of the Setas have not worked well. Allies and opponents alike have forcefully brought the problems to the public’s attention because they are concerned to see every cent collected under the skills levy for training delivery being spent properly and certainly, not wastefully or fraudulently. I agree completely with this view.
It has been patently painful for me to watch, with paralysis, incidences of poor performance, inadequate accountability and in some instances, financial impropriety. In a country where the rule of law reigns supreme, I can only exercise powers which have been conferred on me by the law. The current law does not allow me to adequately intervene and address matters that many of you have correctly complained about in relation to the operation of the Setas.
My first response was to highlight this problem to our social partners whose representatives sit on governing boards of these Setas. I was thrilled when the social partners accepted the challenge and made the commitments they did at the Growth and Development Summit. You will remember that both business and labour said that they would ensure that their representatives to the Seta boards are at a sufficiently senior level, in order to be able to take meaningful decisions and provide strategic direction. They would also ensure that they are adequately prepared for this responsibility. Hopefully, in future they will stand to account when problems arise. I will not have to take the heat alone. After all, I do not sit on the board of any of the Setas.
However, I must accept that ensuring that the objectives of the Skills Development Act are achieved is my responsibility. And, in summary, the central reason for the amendments is to give me the right to fix problems that have arisen so that the skills revolution can accelerate apace without being drawn back by the negative publicity that applies.
When considering the changes to the law I had a choice: I could attempt to remedy each and every problem as it arose or I could clarify my expectations of good, efficient performance and transformatory practice for all Setas, and then put in place procedures to target those who deviated from this. I have chosen the latter. I felt that the former course would lead to an ad hoc set of prescriptions which would increasingly skew the playing field in ways that would eventually undermine the universal training agenda we are trying to put in place.
So you will see, hon members, in these amendments a new obligation on all Setas to enter service level agreements with the Department of Labour that clearly set out performance outcomes and very clear step, should any Seta fail to meet its obligations in terms of these agreements. For example, I shall have power to instruct Setas to remedy a problem and if they fail to do so, then this will itself constitute grounds for the takeover of their administration.
Some feel, I know, that giving me the power to set salaries for staff and allowances for board members is going too far. They feel that is the board’s responsibility. The need for intervention arose in response to a public outcry about these matters, where the Seta boards were the authority to set reasonable standards in this regard from March 2000, but have failed to do so.
However, those who are concerned that I will exercise this power in an arbitrary way that interferes with the performance of Setas need not worry. It is precisely in order to promote the performance or Setas that I am introducing these measures, and so a fair balance will be found following a fair and transparent process.
There are other challenges in the Skills Development Act that have been occasioned by other implementation problems. In regard to private employment agencies, for example, there are those of you in this House who will recall the case that was highlighted in the media last year. It was found in this case that young women were being recruited by unscrupulous private employment agencies from the rural areas with the promise of domestic work here in Cape Town.
They were ferried to town in taxis that they were later expected to pay for, kept in barrack-like conditions and then hired out at extremely low rates of pay. Most of the agencies engaged in this practice were not registered with the Department of Labour, but ambiguities in the legislation made it unnecessarily difficult to close them down.
The proposed amendments put the matter beyond doubt. All private employment agencies will be expected to be registered and will only be registered if they comply to decent work practices. Failure to do so will undoubtedly lead to their closure. I salute those in the private sector employment agency industry who have supported this measure, demonstrating their commitment to clean up this industry.
The other positive measure that these amendments are introducing is Employment and Skills Development Agencies. These agencies are intended to accelerate the uptake of learners in learnerships by taking from smaller employers, and even nongovernmental agencies, all the hassle of the administration side of learnerships. There will be no reason for any firm not to take on learners after this amendment.
Indeed, I support the call of the National Youth Commission that every single employer should have at least one learner. Only on this scale will we be able to achieve both our growth and development target of 72 000 learners by May next year and the national skills development strategy target of 80 000 by March 2005.
I trust that the hon members who are committed to the objectives of the skills revolution will support these amendments and also do their bit within their spheres of influence to ensure that our skills revolution becomes a resounding success. Enkosi. [Thank you.] [Applause.]
Mr C R REDCLIFFE: Chairperson, the legislative amendments to the Skills Development Amendment Bill deal by and largely with the Sector Education and Training Authorities. I, therefore, will be focusing my remarks largely on the Setas, because most of the substantive amendments deal with them.
The DA has always been very critical of them Setas and we are on record as asking that they be scrapped. We have said that they are wasteful, overbureaucratic and ineffective. In our experience we have found them to be self-serving, with the people involved earning exorbitant salaries and with equally big egos. I know the Minister himself has also been very critical and shares the same concerns, and he said so today as well.
We, on this side of the House, have warned repeatedly about these concerns since the inception of the Setas three years ago. This is the result if one implements such overbureaucratic institutions. This country does not have the luxury of engaging in elaborate schemes. It is important that what we do, we do right the first time. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.
The DA shares the Government’s deep concern that the poor skills base on our country inhibits our competitiveness. Skills development should enjoy a very high priority in South Africa. Without it, our economic growth would be stunted and millions of our people would struggle to find employment.
Central to the amendments is the intention to strengthen the Minister’s powers to influence the work of the Setas and to hold them to tighter account. The rationale for the Minister is to intervene decisively in the operations of these Setas because of their ineffectiveness. But the hon Minister may find out that each intervention will create further distortions, which in turn will spawn a need for further new interventions. After putting his fingers into 25 pies, he may find it difficult to extricate himself. He may just have to plug one hole after the other. For his sake, we sincerely hope this will not be the case.
A few months ago we looked at the example of the construction industry Seta. Two-thirds of employees work for builders with fewer than 20 employees, and 87% work for builders with fewer than 50 employees. It takes a person five days of training to learn how to fill in the Seta forms. Money is paid out to appoint facilitators and submit plans and reports, even if no training has taken place.
In its nearly three years of existence the construction industry Seta has collected over R200 million from its members. Not one learnership has been entered into the building industry which would lead to a trade qualification. Of 11 000 employees, only about 400 have submitted workplace skills plans, of which about 260 have been approved. Many employers consider that the work required and the bureaucratic obstacles to be surmounted are not worth it for the refunds obtained.
We can mention other examples of nonperformance. Suffice it to say, most of the Setas, particularly those in the public sector, are the guilty ones.
Although the DA will not oppose the Skills Development Amendment Bill, it is not true that we did not express our reservations during the deliberations in the portfolio committee, as was suggested by the Minister during his parliamentary briefing last week. In fact, we proposed three amendments to the Bill in the portfolio committee and all of these were rejected.
The Skills Development Amendment Bill is characterised by a high degree of intervention by the Minister in what should be purely administrative actions, which should fall within the domain of the director-general as the accounting officer. This is particularly true in respect of clause 9, which amends section 14 of the principal Act.
The amendment essentially prescribes the total expenditure that a Seta may make on its administration; the amount that a Seta may spend on any aspect of its administration; salary bands within which categories of employees must be remunerated; the conditions under which employees may receive performance-related payments and the maximum payment that may be made to an employee in this regard, etc.
All these, I submit, are of an administrative nature. This also applies to clause 10 in the Bill. The DA will monitor the Setas on an on-going basis. We simply cannot wait for another few years to determine its ineffectiveness. For the moment, we are giving the Minister the benefit of the doubt and we will not oppose the Bill.
Mr M J G MZONDEKI: Thank you, Deputy Chair. We have tried our best in the portfolio committee to educate the member Redcliffe, but we have failed dismally. He says that the DA is concerned about the shortage of skills in the country, but at the same time he talks about scrapping the Setas. Unfortunately, this is not how we deal with things as the ANC. We do not scrap something before we have identified a remedy.
The amendments before us today are, once more, efforts by the ANC-led Government to address the legacy of the past regime. The ANC is supporting these amendments because they are about ensuring that we strengthen and speed up the implementation of the Skills Development Act. The proposal for these amendments is informed by the oversight work that we do.
Reports on the work of the Setas as well as the public hearings on employment equity held by the portfolio committee indicate that unless we make this intervention we will not achieve the objectives and targets we have set ourselves as a nation with regard to the skills revolution and equity in the workplace. The concern that has been raised at the public hearings is that there is no link between the Skills Development Act and employment equity to prevent employers, when addressing the question of equity, from saying that they can’t find suitable people. In this debate, therefore, I want to share with the members the contents of the Employment Equity Registry Report and the National Skills Development Strategy Implementation Report, both of 2001 and 2002. I will also share with you some of the good work that is done through the National Skills Fund.
Let me remind members that the objective of the Skills Development Act is to equip South Africans, those in employment, those seeking to enter employment, as well as communities in our country, with skills. In order to achieve this, we had to put in place a framework that included the Setas driving the learnerships, the National Skills Authority advising the department, and the funding of strategic Government projects aimed especially at those outside of the world of work from the National Skills Fund through an allocation of 20% of the levies.
The Employment Equity Report reflects that 77% of all employees are black. However, blacks represent only 25% of all employees in top management, which is unacceptable. Women represent 35% of all employees, yet only 12% of them are in top management - also unacceptable. Only 1% of disabled people are represented at different levels of management, which is very unacceptable.
The ANC is serious about addressing these inequities in the workplace. The report indicates that the shortage of skills among these designated groups is one of the barriers to achieving equity. Employers ask: “Where do we find skilled people in these categories?” The report also reflects on the representation of women in the various staff levels of the various Setas.
What is important to note about this report is that women are best represented in the health and welfare Setas; they make up about 76% of staff. However, they are worst represented in the following sectors: transport, energy, construction and mining. Their representation ranges between 3% and 8%.
This situation cannot be correct, because it means that women will remain in the health and welfare sectors as nurses and social workers, while men become engineers, technicians, construction company owners and mining bosses. The ANC will not allow this, and therefore welcomes amendments that address equity within the governing bodies and staff of the Setas, because we believe that if we correct the situation in the Setas first, then we will be in a better position to deliver equity.
Again, without going into the details of the implementation report on the skills strategy, let me state that it reflects not only that the picture is balanced, but that there are challenges to all those concerned about skills development in our country. Of the five objectives outlined in the strategy, the most worrying for the ANC is the one about assisting new entrants into employment.
The labour force survey of 2001 indicated that 72% of the youth between the ages of 16 and 34 are struggling to make the transition to work. Youth unemployment is a critical issue facing our country and therefore the achievement of the objective of assisting new entrants into employment is essential.
Lastly, I want to reflect on some of the projects that are funded from the National Skills Fund. These projects aim to develop skills within vulnerable sectors, such as domestic workers, taxi and fishing industries, emerging and subsistence farmers, ex-mineworkers and retrenched workers from defence who are disabled.
The ANC believes that the proposal to dedicate a portion of the administration to the fund will enable the fund to be more effective and indeed assist in pushing back the frontiers of poverty, especially among those who are not in employment. The ANC is not only concerned about those who earn a salary by being in employment, but also those who aspire to earn a living through employment or self-employment.
We believe, therefore, that these amendments are critical to addressing the problems of inequity, skills shortage and unemployment, as discussed. The ANC supports these amendments. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N S MIDDLETON: Hon Chairman, hon members, the Skills Development Act of 1998 sought to create a framework for improving the skills of the South African workforce. The Minister of Labour, in one of his messages to the National Skills Development Strategy, once said: “If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.” Uyakhumbula? [Do you remember?] [Interjections.] Okay.
When skills development was introduced, resulting in the formation of various Setas, it was with the main purpose of training and developing properly skilled and properly trained workers. It is unfortunate, as the Minister has stated, that some of the Setas have not performed as was expected of them. It is for this reason, amongst many others, that this amending Bill now seeks to give more powers to the Minister in order to respond positively to all these problems experienced through Setas that do not perform as expected, and for the purpose for which they were formed.
In accordance with these proposed amendments, the Minister may intervene in cases of management and accountability of any Seta. By improving the operations of the Setas, the amending Bill further empowers the Minister to establish and promote good practice in skills development. It further extends the Minister’s power to make regulations. Generally, this amendment gives the Minister powers to change the composition of the National Skills Authority.
The IFP further wishes to request the Minister to urgently look at the possibility of mergers in some of these Setas. Some of these Setas seem to be duplicating their work.
The IFP welcomes the fact that this amendment now clears the question of dealing with the unscrupulous private employment agencies, in particular, that are abusing their status. Such agencies should not only be deregistered, but should be closed down completely.
Just a few days ago, Mr Minister, a couple was arrested for corruption and for operating an illegal employment agency here in Cape Town. This agency is alleged to have charged unemployed people a fee of R270 in return for a job. It was estimated that over 3 000 residents in the area of Kuyasa near Khayelitsha were registered. The amendment proposed in this Bill is therefore appreciated for just such unscrupulous agencies. The IFP supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr R M MOROPA: Chairperson, Minister, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, I also rise to join the queue in telling the people of South Africa the truth about our success during the first 10 years of political freedom and democracy, and to counteract the negative propaganda that South Africa’s first democratic Government has failed to deliver on its manifesto - a false claim predicated on the theory of white supremacy, an ill-conceived notion that South Africa is in a worse situation today than it was 10 years ago.
This, when we managed to establish and operationalise 25 Sector Education and Training Authorities in less than two years and when no fewer than 23 513 learners were admitted to learnership schemes during the 2002 and 2003 financial years. Despite all these and other giant strides made, our detractors conveniently elect to see a black Government that cannot do anything plausible.
South Africa has been undergoing a profound socioeconomic transformation, with the old undemocratic apartheid institutions being dismantled and replaced with egalitarian and democratic state institutions. On the economic front, these changes took the form of structural transformation and reform, implying a movement away from activities based in the primary sector of agriculture and mining towards more knowledge-based secondary and tertiary sector activities, with far-reaching implications for employment patterns and the type of skills that are in demand.
We all know the reasons for the slowing down of these economic changes. The past institutionalised racial discrimination, particularly the denial of access to quality education for the vast majority of the population, is responsible for these economic and labour market inequalities.
It is against this backdrop that the Skills Development Amendment Bill is being introduced to the House today as a contribution towards the attainment of an elusive balance between skills demanded by the ever- modernising economy and the availability of matching human capital. The ANC understands the consequences of a low skills base in a global economy in which competition transcends national boundaries and capital flows are highly mobile. We understand very well that South Africa’s competitive position is mainly determined by the quality of its human capital.
This honest account marks both the end of 10 years of sustained improvement in skills service delivery and the beginning of a renewed commitment to the vision of a better life for all South Africans. This legislative intervention confirms the determination of the ANC in the current strategic goal of the national reconstruction and development of our society, for the eradication of economic exclusion and marginalisation of the vast majority of South African citizens.
There is nothing draconian in this amending Bill tabled before this House today, as has been noted by the opposition. However, what is contained in this Bill, like its predecessor, is a demonstration of our firm commitment to tackling the hostile legacy of institutionalised racism we inherited in
- These proposed amendments provide us with a legislative framework in the building and activation of the campaign of the broad national front for robust national skills development to reduce the number of unemployable people by raising the skills level of the masses of our people.
A memorandum of understanding, which was used as an interim measure to assess and evaluate the performance of Setas in the absence of a legislative provision, will now give way to the service level agreement clause, as proposed in the Bill. This provision gives the Minister the power to issue an instruction to a Seta if it has failed to meet its obligations under the service level agreement. The Bill deals with the arrangements and procedure to be followed in the event that the Minister is required to issue an instruction to a Seta, and it is compulsory for Setas to enter into such agreements.
The ANC, in its 1999 election manifesto, declared openly that where there were blockages to change, we would remove them; where there was laziness, wastage and lack of focus, we would intervene with determination. And, with this Bill, these words are translated into action.
We feel strongly that the amendment put forward for consideration on the basis that the Minister is politically accountable for the successful implementation of this Act and must, equally, be equipped with regulation- making powers to regulate when he deems necessary, is a provision that must be supported and approved.
In strengthening the Act, the amending Bill makes it obligatory for each Seta to address the most important issue of equity in both its governing bodies and its staff composition. In support of this proposal we want to add further that it must be equally obligatory for any new Seta to comply with this clause at its inception, and those that are currently contravening this clause must immediately embark on a redress.
Also worth mentioning is that the Act at present does not give the Minister the power to effect the merger of Setas, or to change their scope of cover. The proposed amendment rectifies this position. However, it requires the Minister to seek the advice of the National Skills Authority before exercising these new powers.
The clause on the intermediate agency for learnerships seeks to introduce a new concept and will allow an employer to contract a dedicated agency to perform the functions of the employer in learnership agreements and contracts of employment. This is introduced in order to enable small firms and even nongovernmental organisations to take on learners without having to take on the administrative functions associated with learnerships. The amendment also empowers the Minister to regulate this relationship, in the hope that this will increase the number of learnerships in aggregate and encourage small firms to develop a culture of lifelong learning.
Whilst there has always been an obligation for private employment agencies to register with the Department of Labour, there has, however, been some confusion about the power to deregister unscrupulous private employment agencies and to compel them to close down. This matter is now clarified in this Bill.
In conclusion, the Bill being introduced here has been through a rigorous debating and pruning process after public inputs and comments were taken into account. The ANC supports these amendments, because they are crucial in the fast-tracking of national skills distribution towards meeting the needs of the economy and our new democratic order. On behalf of the ANC, we call on all socioeconomic progressive formations to join us in the broad democratic front to speed up the journey to a life of dignity and fulfilment for all through the skills revolution. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S PILLAY: Madam Speaker, unemployment, poverty, HIV/Aids, crime, and the lack of housing and skills are some of the major problems that plague our country.
The uneven distribution of middle management, senior management and executive management positions and appointments is another major cause for concern. The Setas are necessary and should be used to deal with this problem. As indicated in the introduction, the Skills Development Amendment Bill is designed to enable the Minister to deal in part with unemployment, therefore the New NP supports this Bill.
Most social organisations, people, economic entities and political parties agree that the issues I outlined in my introduction are problematic and need our urgent attention. Yet, when the Minister introduces this Bill certain vested interests that revel in slave labour and right-wing leanings immediately complain about the amendments and the existence of the Setas. I take delight in knowing that no matter what ideas and plans those right- wingers may have, they will not prevent the passing and implementation of this critical Bill. Essentially, no amount of chicanery will deflect from the validity and desirability of this Bill.
This Bill explains what “designated groups” means. It also places certain obligations on private employment service agencies, and rectifies several problems associated with the composition, duties, obligations, functioning and accountability of the Setas. It further brings clarity into the relationship between the director-general and the Setas, and that, too, is most welcome. Some Setas are not performing their tasks and, quite frankly, deserve to be shut down.
The textile Seta has made huge strides and is one that needs to be congratulated. If a Seta is unable or unwilling to assist in the skills development process, reduce unemployment in its sector and act as a catalyst to empower members of the designated groups, then the Minister should enthusiastically close them down or instruct them to merge with another Seta.
The director-general will be pleased to note that I do not have time to go into an analysis of each Seta. However, I have completed that analysis and synthesis, and I will interact with him in another forum in that regard. Nevertheless, section 14 is very significant and it is an instrument designed to bring order into the internal processes of the Setas.
I need to remind the House that this amendment is designed to rectify the inhuman and discriminatory practices of the past. Last year I listened to a certain person who said that we should forget about the past, that people of today are not interested in what happened. That is a lie. I am interested in the past and so are millions of us. Those that benefited from the past will seek to spread a lie, cause general confusion and propagate that the past is not important. I wonder how many remember the Job Reservation Act and how many wish we could all forget it. We will remember it.
These amendments are absolutely essential, and the New NP will continue to support them and their implementation. I urge the Minister to ensure that these amendments are implemented without delay as their implementation will provide more safeguards for ordinary people, especially from the designated groups. It is time that the Setas became more accountable in every respect.
As we move closer to 10 years of democracy, this Bill should act as a catalyst to remedy some matters that prevented the Setas from functioning effectively. Certainly, every Seta that functions well creates employment opportunities and reduces poverty. This is an excellent Bill that is long overdue. Thank you. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, the MF supports the strengthening and supporting amendments this Bill gives to the implementation of the Skills Development Act.
A further proposed amendment in relation to Setas is the service level agreements which are deemed necessary for efficient delivery. There is no objection to the clarity given to the Minister’s regulatory powers as this will provide for a determined definition of duties. In light of Seta administration funds and the salaries of board members, the MF is confident that the Minister will be equitable in his direction.
Hon Minister, the MF applauds your interest in improving the lives of our people in skills development, which is directly in line with vukuzenzele. The provisions made in respect of equity and performance are encouraging and beneficial. The involvement of the National Skills Authority is pleasing. Further amendments regarding Setas all appear intact. No objection is posed to the 2% funding of the administration of the National Skills Fund.
The MF therefore supports the Skills Development Amendment Bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr D A A OLIFANT: Madam Speaker, the amendment which the hon Redcliffe introduced was rejected because it was already covered in the Employment Equity Act, and not because we didn’t want it.
For many years blacks - and this is the amendment he wanted - specifically wanted to have the word ``black’’ defined. I’ll define it for you today. For many years blacks, meaning Africans, coloureds and Indians, as well as women and disabled people, were denied access to suitable skills development by the apartheid regime. The industrial and corporate sectors were almost a no-go zone for skills development for black people. Today thousands of previously disadvantaged individuals are undergoing training to better their lives through almost all the Setas. Of course, a lot needs to be done. Skilled people will also benefit more from black economic empowerment.
Let me quote David Berger, in the leader page in today’s Cape Times, writing under the heading: “How BEE could benefit everyone”, and I quote:
In post-1994 South Africa, black economic empowerment (BEE) is part of an integrated strategy to eliminate poverty and achieve global competitiveness through sustainable development. The goal is an opportunity society where people are rewarded according to their contributions.
The strategy focuses on a world economic system based on fair trade; eliminating poverty; macroeconomic stability and competitiveness; a social security system for the young, aged, disabled and unemployed; Government intervention for rural development and urban reconstruction; human resource development; and BEE to mainstream the marginalised.
The key to understanding Government’s implementation plan is knowledge intensification. Knowledge intensification is a people-centred approach to sustainable development. Government departments lead the way by setting goals, strategic planning and organisational change - new business processes and skill development.
Unlike the load of rubbish that was written by hon Mark Lowe in the column next to this particular page … [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Sê vir hulle, Danny. Praat met hulle. [Tell them, Danny. Talk to them.]
Mr D A A OLIFANT: I just want to tell him that the DA rejected the whole question of black economic empowerment.
Mr M J ELLIS: No, that’s rubbish. Mr D A A OLIFANT: You did. You voted against it. Why do you say its rubbish? [Interjections.] You rejected black economic empowerment. You voted against it. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, would you both address the Chair. The one at the podium would start by continuing with his speech.
Mr D A A OLIFANT: I want to ask you to please go and tell Mrs or Ms Nosipho Mfengwana, whom you visited in Philippi after you rejected the Bill, that you don’t want her to uplift herself. You should go and tell her. That’s the reason you rejected the Bill. You deny her the right to have her skills developed. You deny her the right to be economically uplifted.
An HON MEMBER: Sê vir hulle, Danny. [Tell them, Danny.]
Mr D A A OLIFANT: We are proud to say that we want the Minister to have more powers so that the Minister can intervene where Setas are not performing, to ensure that Mrs Nosipho Mfengwana is economically empowered and has her skills developed, unlike your opportunistic approach to the whole question of development in this country. Minister, we support this amending Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
UMPHATHISWA WEZABASEBENZI: Somlomo, usindw’ ezama, ndibhekisa kwilungu elihloniphekileyo uRedcliffe, akana tyala. Okungalunganga kukusonga izandla kusonakala. I-ANC, Mnu Redcliffe, ayisokuze ivume ithi daxa, dudlu okwehagu enyisayo, kusonakala. Kuyanyanzeleka, ukuba sifuna abantu bavuke bazenzele, ukuba sibaqeqeshe baphuhlise izakhono zabo. Sifuna abantu abamnyama beli lizwe balubambe uqoqosho lweli lizwe. Nawe ngaphezulu, nabantwana bakho, kuba ungumcinezelwa, nto nje ingxaki yakho awukacacelwa yiloo nto apha kuwe entloko.
Ndibamba ngazibini ke kuwo onke amalungu ahloniphekileyo. Camagwini bantu bahle. Ndakunihlubela iimpundu ke, mhla ndatyeba. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa speech follows.) [The MINISTER OF LABOUR: Madam Speaker, with reference to hon Redcliffe, there is no harm in trying. What is wrong is to sit with folded arms whilst things go wrong.
Hon Redcliffe, the ANC will never allow people to lie flat on the ground, like a sow feeding its piglets, whilst things go wrong. It is imperative, if we want people to arise and act, that we train them in order to develop their skills. We want the black people of this country to have a hold on the economy of this country. You, too, and your children. Because you are oppressed. It’s just that your problem is that this has not yet become clear in your mind.
I am very grateful to all the hon members. Thanks, good people. I will share with you what I value most one day. [Applause.]]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
The House adjourned at 17:50. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- Translations of Bills submitted:
(1) The Minister of Minerals and Energy:
(i) Wysigingswetsontwerp op die Registrasie van Myntitels [W
24 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75).
This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Mining
Titles Registration Amendment Bill [B 24 - 2003] (National
Assembly - sec 75).
(2) The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:
(i) Wysigingswetsontwerp op Herstel van Grondregte [W 42 -
2003] (National Assembly - sec 75).
This is the official translation into Afrikaans of the Restitution
of Land Rights Amendment Bill [B 42 - 2003] (National Assembly -
sec 75).
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Finance:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Corporation for Public
Deposits for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors for 2002-2003.
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Reserve
Bank for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Independent
Auditors for 2002-2003.
(c) Annual Economic Report of the South African Reserve Bank for
2003.
(d) Address of the Governer of the South African Reserve Bank - 26
August 2003.
(e) Government Notice No 1073 published in Government Gazette No
25247 dated 8 August 2003: Amendment of the Rules of the
Government Employees Pension Fund, in terms of the Government
Employees Pension Law, 1996 (Act No 21 of 1996).
(f) Government Notice No 2261 published in Government Gazette No
25367 dated 29 August 2003: Rate on the interest on government
loans, in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No
1 of 1999).
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
National Assembly:
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill [B 39 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 17 September 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism, having considered the subject of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill [B 39 - 2003] (National Assembly
- sec 76), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 76 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 39A - 2003].
-
Report of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism on the Environment Conservation Amendment Bill [B 45 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 17 September 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and Tourism, having considered the subject of the Environment Conservation Amendment Bill [B 45 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 76), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 76 Bill, reports the Bill with amendments [B 45A - 2003].