National Assembly - 26 September 2003
FRIDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2003 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 9:03.
The Deputy Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see 000.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Ms C DUDLEY: Thank you. I hereby give notice on behalf of the ACDP:
That the House -
(1) notes that Dr Derek Prince, a distinguished Bible teacher, author and long-time Jerusalem resident, died on Wednesday morning at the age of 88 after a series of chronic illnesses;
(2) sends condolences to Dr Prince’s friends and his family of 11 children and an extended family of over 150 relatives; and
(3) notes that the impact of Derek Prince’s life and work on the Christian world has been like that of few others, and he leaves behind a rich legacy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I am not sure that that is a notice of a motion you really wish the House to come back and debate. We have now said notices of motion are issues that we really want to place on the Order Paper for that day, so that they can actually be delved into.
Mr L M GREEN: Deputy Speaker, could we therefore withdraw that and then do it as a motion without notice? We have consulted with the other Chief Whips. Thank you. Mr A J BOTHA: Hon Deputy Speaker, I hereby give notice on behalf of the DA:
That the House -
(1) notes the crisis in the Agricultural Research Council and the Government’s inadequate response thereto, namely,
(a) the halving of research capacity and expertise;
(b) the increasing exposure to animal diseases and crop pests, which
diminishes food security and threatens trade; and
(c) the undermining of scientific support for Nepad.
(2) resolves to instruct the Government to take all necessary measures to restore the capacity needed to maintain food security in South Africa and Southern Africa and enable ongoing international trade in food and fibre.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion without notice from the ACDP that has already been presented will then come under this. That will be fine hon member, you don’t need to get up again.
PROUDLY SOUTH AFRICAN WEEK
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) 21 to 28 September is Proudly South African week; and
(b) since the dawn of democracy the South Africa brand has, locally
and internationally, both in terms of quality and quantity,
appreciated considerably and that our creative output of goods
and services has, in real terms, improved;
(2) believes that -
(a) South Africans living in the country and abroad should seek out
and support local goods and services and that we all have the
power to make a difference in our local economy and job creation
by supporting local goods and services; and
(b) this week gives South Africans an opportunity to unite as a
nation and celebrate national pride through supporting Proudly
South African; and
(3) supports Proudly South African.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, may I go back to the motion without notice from the ACDP. Are there any objections, just for the sake of formality to the ACDP’s motion without notice? No objection.
Agreed to.
PASSING AWAY OF SIMON MUZENDA
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes -
(a) with profound sadness, the passing away, on Saturday, 20
September 2003, of Zimbabwean Vice-President Simon Muzenda; and
(b) that Vice-President Muzenda made an immense contribution in the
struggle for the liberation of Zimbabwe from British colonial
rule; and
(2) conveys its heartfelt condolences to the Muzenda family and the government and people of Zimbabwe.
Agreed to.
PAN AFRICAN PARLIAMENT
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) congratulates the Chairperson and the other Commissioners of the African Union who took office on 16 September 2003;
(2) welcomes in particular Mrs Julia Joiner as the Commissioner for Political Affairs, whose responsibilities include the Pan African Parliament, and her dedicated commitment to its early establishment;
(3) looks forward to their leadership and constructive working relations in advancing the course of the unity and development of Africa; and
(4) pledges support for the establishment of the Pan African Parliament.
Agreed to.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY HOUSE
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:
That, with reference to the resolution adopted by the House on 18 September 2003, the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Auditing Function is to complete its task by no later than 28 November 2003.
Agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF RULE 23(2)
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name in the Order Paper, as follows:
That the House suspends Rule 23(2) in regard to Tuesday, 21 October 2003, and that the hours of sitting on that day shall be as follows:
10:00, or such later time as the Speaker determines, to adjournment.
Agreed to.
DEATH OF ANC STALWART
(Member's Statement)
Mr O BAPELA (ANC): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The ANC notes with sadness the death of one of its stalwarts and veteran of the revolution, Comrade Dolly Mashigo of Alexandra township.
She died mysteriously and according to police was mauled by a pack of dogs, although further investigations are continuing. Ma-Onnica Mashigo was a member of the ANC underground structures and uMkhonto weSizwe, which she served with dedication.
She was arrested together with one of the outstanding leaders of the ANC, Comrade Joe Qhawe, and others such as Naledi Ntsike, Alec Nchabeleng, Peter Nchabeleng, Tokyo Sexwale, Martin Ramokgadi, to mention a few, who were later tried in what was known as the Pretoria treason trial in 1977. Due to her resilience and bravery she refused to succumb during the drastic torture she was subjected to in detention. That brutal torture, while in detention, however, led to her loss of memory which deteriorated into a mental illness. She was subsequently released in 1978.
MaMashigo never recovered from the mental illness she suffered from since
- She continued to live in her house in Tenth Avenue, which was one of the bases of the MK and ANC underground structures. Her disguise as an operative of MK was as cattle herder. Even during her illness she continued to look after the cattle and refused to part with them. Due to her illness she lived a lonely and isolated life until recently when she was taken into an old-age home at Itlhokomeleng in Alexandra.
She was recently honoured by one of the branches in Alexandra, which is named after her, namely, the Onnica Mashigo ANC branch in ward 81, Johannesburg. The ANC salutes this brave and unsung heroine who sacrificed much for a nonracial, nonsexist and democratic South Africa. May her soul rest in peace. I thank you.
ZIMBABWE EXCLUSION
(Member's Statement)
Mr W J SEREMANE (DA): Deputy Speaker, recent events in Zimbabwe have shown that getting tough on President Mugabe can achieve positive results. It is clear that the international embarrassment and isolation of excluding Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth Conference has led Robert Mugabe to his latest, although very belated, attempt at reconciliation with the opposition.
This was achieved despite President Mbeki’s desperate attempt to prevent it. It is both ironic and sad that John Howard’s tough approach succeeded where President Thabo Mbeki’s silent diplomacy failed. But now we need some more certainty that President Mugabe intends to follow through on engaging with the opposition, and that this will not join the list of broken promises.
It is time for President Mbeki to adopt a new approach towards the Zimbabwean government. His constructive engagement has proved to be little more than a cover for dancing with dictators, and quiet diplomacy is quite an embarrassment. The only other way forward is aggressive engagement with this despot, Robert Mugabe. I thank you.
UNEMPLOYMENT
(Member's Statement)
Ms M M MDLALOSE (IFP): Madam Deputy Speaker, about 5,3 million people or 31,2% of economically active South Africans were officially unemployed in March 2003, according to the figures released earlier this week by Stats SA.
In the expanded definition of unemployment, it was 42,1% or 8,4 million people. The figure for March last year was 29,4%. These figures show just how dismal the unemployment situation in this country is. It is totally unacceptable that unemployment is so high and there are no signs of it dropping at any time.
These unemployed, economically active people could be contributing to the growth of the South African economy. Such high unemployment creates negativity and makes people lose hope of ever finding a job and causes them to resign themselves to a life of unemployment. We cannot let a culture of unemployment develop in South Africa. Something has to be done. We therefore urge all the relevant stakeholders to urgently find ways of correcting this situation and to find ways of creating employment, encouraging entrepreneurs and finally putting an end to the cycle of unemployment.
Government and the private sector have to work together to better this situation as it affects them both and stops the country and the majority of the people from prospering economically. Thank you.
REBURIAL OF LINDA JABANE
(Member's Statement)
Ms T R MODISE (ANC): Deputy Speaker, Linda Jabane, known as the Lion of Chiawelo, a combatant of uMkhonto weSizwe, who was killed in a grenade explosion during a shoot-out with the security forces in Chiawelo in 1980, will be reburied this Saturday.
The death of Linda’s aunt on 22 September 2003 has conspired to ensure that Linda’s reburial on Saturday becomes a joint funeral. The ANC is grateful to our alliance partners and the Jabane family for working together with us to ensure that those who paid for freedom with their lives are bestowed with dignity and recognition befitting their heroism.
We share the grief of the Jabane family, even as we celebrate the life of the hero they gave to our people and us. Tomorrow Regina Mundi will reverberate with the song of freedom. [Applause.]
REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO FARM ATTACKS
(Member's Statement)
Mrs M E OLCKERS (New NP): Madam Deputy Speaker, the New NP welcomes the finding of the independent inquiry into farm attacks, that 98% of farm attacks are not politically or racially motivated.
This report can go a long way to solve the problem of farm attacks, but then its recommendations must be implemented fully. The New NP wants to be part of this process. We have already requested a meeting with the Minister of Safety and Security to discuss the implementation thereof.
What is of concern in this report is the finding of the committee that some land reform organisations have openly declared their intention to facilitate land invasions and all indications are that these invasions are going to increase with all the attendant consequences.
The committee finds, in this regard, that farmers are not being given the assistance to which they are constitutionally entitled. The New NP calls on the Government to urgently rectify this situation and to implement existing laws governing illegal land invasions.
The report also confirms calls by the New NP that the process of land restitution should be speeded up in line with existing legislation, including the identification of land for residential purposes.
Furthermore, the committee agrees with the New NP that the phasing out of the commando system should be done in an orderly way and not leave a vacuum.
SRC ELECTIONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
(Member's Statement)
Dr C P MULDER (FF): Madam Deputy Speaker, on Monday this week the FF made a member’s statement, bringing results of the SRC elections of the University of Pretoria to the attention of this House.
The FF won that election for the seventh consecutive year, the DA came second and the ANC came third. In his response to this statement, the Minister of Education, Minister Asmal, said the following: You should be ashamed of claiming victory there, because you are playing with fire. You are too long in the tooth now to play with fire in South Africa by using racism.
The Minister went on to say:
The elections were run on a racist basis. All parties which participated, opposed the elections.
These statements were absolutely untrue. I then pointed this out, on a point of order, and asked if it was in order for the hon Minister to mislead the House.
What are the facts? Up to 17 parties participated in these elections. All posters and election materials were approved by the monitoring committee under the chairpersonship of the dean of students, Dr Ezekiel Moraka. One party out of 17, the ASB, used posters and slogans that were racist in nature. The FF has no connection or involvement with this organisation. No poster or pamphlet used by the FF was racist in any way.
Despite this, the Minister went on with his racial slander of the FF. Mr Asmal, I’ve known you to be an honest person, a person with integrity. I now ask you, in this House, to do the correct thing and apologise to the FF.
THE DEATH OF DR EDWARD SAID
(Member's Statement)
Dr Z P JORDAN (ANC): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, on 25 September 2003, we received the sad news of the untimely death of Dr Edward Said, one of the best known and internationally recognised Palestinian intellectuals.
Born in Jerusalem 67 years ago, Dr Said became part of the Palestinian diaspora and used his incisive intellect to advocate the cause of the Palestinian people internationally. A prolific writer on the arts, literature and Middle Eastern affairs, Dr Edward Said’s reasoned approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has assisted thousands throughout the world to better appreciate the justice of the Palestinian cause.
The ANC extends its deepest condolences to his family, his friends and his people. The passing away of this world-renowned scholar is doubly tragic at a time when his keen mind could have contributed immeasurably to finding a solution to one of the world’s most intractable problems.
We join the rest of humanity in mourning the passing of this great scholar. [Applause.]
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
(Member's Statement)
Mr I S MFUNDISI (UCDP): Deputy Speaker, there are a number of statutory bodies that resort under the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology that seem to pay no attention to upholding standards of financial accountability. The current annual report of the Africa Institute of SA paints a miserable picture. The report has been qualified on grounds such as no stock sheets being submitted for verification, expenditure without authorisation and failure to present supporting documents for purchases.
In the case of the National Zoological Gardens of SA there is no proof of an internal audit, and the institution does not adhere to Treasury regulations in that risk assessments are not conducted regularly. Such practice has resulted in the net loss of R2 112 000, after receiving a R15 million subsidy from the department which indicates that the institution is dependent on the department.
On the other hand, however, the National Arts Council of SA showed that it is possible to meet the said requirements. Over and above the unqualified auditor’s report, the council has been nominated as one of the top performers of the public sector by Mpumelelo empowerment companies. We call on the accounting officers of the other institutions to take a leaf from the book of the National Arts Council of SA. We have passed the stage of struggle bookkeeping. We advise that the time has come for adherence to the prescripts of the Public Finance Management Act.
Those whose stewardship is found wanting should appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and, if necessary, be forced to pay the excess unaccounted for expenditure as laid down in the Act. I thank you.
NATIONAL HERITAGE DAY
(Member's Statement)
Ms M P MENTOR (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, this past Wednesday South Africa celebrated its heritage. On Wednesday, as South Africans, we afforded ourselves the opportunity to cast our eyes to the mountains and to set our feet on the mountain ranges, heritage sites and in the oceans of our country, all of which are as beautiful, delicate and warm as the people who inhabit the land.
This national Heritage Day allowed us to enjoy the varied songs, dances and languages that are the common pride of our people. The day gave us a moment to assert our right to shape a better tomorrow for ourselves. It gave us a moment to define ourselves, even as we pursue the strategic prize of a beautiful, peaceful, nonracial, nonsexist people bound together by a common patriotism, loyalty and a spirit of humanism.
The beautiful sense arising out of celebrations served to remind us that poverty poses a threat to our heritage, hence the need to put the shoulder to the wheel to strengthen the people’s contract for a better tomorrow. We thank you. [Applause.]
REACTION OF SA POLICE SERVICE TO REPORT ON FARM ATTACKS
(Member's Statement)
Adv P S SWART (DA): Mevrou die Adjunkspeaker, die agb Minister Nqakula verwys graag na die SA Polisiediens se grondwetlike plig om toe te sien na die veiligheid en sekuriteit van al ons mense, ‘n plig wat nie geabdikeer of gedelegeer kan word nie - aldus die argument vir die uitfasering van die kommando’s. Die polisie se reaksie op die verslag oor plaasaanvalle moet teen hierdie agtergrond gesien word.
Twee onrusbarende faktore staan egter uit: die agb Minister het eers aangekondig dat die kommando’s deur ‘n spesiale divisie in die polisie vervang gaan word, in ooreenstemming met die DA se beleidstukke; daarna het hy egter gesê dat dit met gewone sektor polisiëring sal wees - steeds die idee dat die een of ander permanente struktuur sal kom. Gister se verduideliking deur die polisie se senior bestuur dat 59 000 kommandolede deur 50 000 area misdaadbestrydingsreserviste en sektorpolisiëringsreserviste vervang gaan word, gooi egter die bal terug na die publiek en die vrywilligers.
Hierdie abdikasie van die polisie se grondwetlike plig stuur ‘n duidelike boodskap uit aan die mense in ons landelike gebiede. Saam met die besondere klem op die aanbevelings dat boere hulle eie sekuriteit moet opskerp, sê dit net een ding: solank die huidige Regering aan bewind is, moet julle na julself omsien.
Die DA se boodskap is duidelik: die beste sekuriteit op plase is behoorlik bemande, toegeruste, sigbare, misdaadvoorkomende polisiëring. Dankie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Adv P S SWART (DA): Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Minister Nqakula likes to refer to the South African Police Service’s constitutional duty to ensure the safety and security of all our people, a duty that cannot be abdicated or delegated - according to the argument for phasing out the commandos. The reaction of the police to the report on farm attacks should be seen against this background.
However, two disconcerting factors stand out: the hon Minister firstly announced that the commandos would be replaced by a special division of the police, in accordance with the DA’s policies; he then, however, said that it would be with ordinary sector policing - still the idea that one or the other permanent structure will follow. Yesterday’s explanation by the police’s senior management that 59 000 commando members will be replaced by 50 000 area crime prevention reservists and sector policing reservists puts the ball back into the court of the public and volunteers.
This abdication of the police’s constitutional duty sends a clear message to the people in our rural areas. Along with the particular focus on the suggestions that farmers should step up their own security, it simply states one thing: As long as the present Government is in power, you have to take care of yourselves.
The DA’s message is clear: The best security on farms is adequately manned, equipped, visible, crime-preventative policing. Thank you. [Applause.]]
COEGA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ZONE
(Member's Statement)
Mr B C NGIBA (IFP): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Coega Industrial Development Zone near Port Elizabeth in the Eastern Cape is a vital component of our country’s assimilated industrial growth and the economic growth of the Eastern Cape province, where unemployment and extreme poverty are the order of the day.
The Coega development is highly ambitious and it was clear from the very beginning of the project that a major anchor tenant would be needed to attract other investors and to make the infrastructural investment planned for the area economically feasible. It was, therefore, very welcome when the French aluminium manufacturer, Pechiney, indicated that it would build an aluminium smelter at Coega. Yet that commitment seems now to have been placed in jeopardy with the Canadian Alcan group poised for a hostile take- over of Pechiney.
Alcan’s executive has already said that they will not be rushed into taking a decision on the smelter project, and general uncertainty seems to be high. What is even more worrying for the future of Coega is the decision by a senior government official that there was still work to be done by Government to clarify for ourselves and for investors what the value proposition is in the industrial development zone, as quoted in Business Rapport of 23 September 2003.
What this convoluted statement appears to say is that Government is not sure of how much value Coega will be to itself and to potential investors. Surely this is not … [Time expired.]
TELKOM'S HABITAT FOR HUMANITY PROJECT
(Member's Statement)
Mr L M KGWELE (ANC): Deputy Speaker, last week about 289 Telkom employees demonstrated their commitment to President Thabo Mbeki’s Letsema call to lend a helping hand by participating in a corporate building week when they joined me and other local volunteers in my constituency to build three houses in Oukasie near Brits as part of the company’s annual contribution to the Habitat for Humanity project. Leading by example, Telkom’s chairperson, Nomazizi Mtshotshisa, personally participated in the building process on 18 September 2003. On Saturday, 20 September, we were joined by another delegation of Telkom’s top leadership, including the CEO, Sizwe Nxasana and chief operational officer, Sean McKenzie, chief strategic officer, C T Tan, and Oupa Magashule, group executive: human resources, to name but a few.
This delegation and their employees really braved the soaring heat and got their hands dirty. At the end of the day everyone was gratified to have made a difference in the impoverished Oukasie community - a fitting tribute to the community’s historic struggle against apartheid discrimination, deprivation and resistance against forced removal.
The ANC salutes all the volunteers for reconstruction and development who were involved, and call for other companies to emulate Telkom’s patriotic example. I thank you. [Applause.]
SA CHILDREN LIVING IN ABJECT POVERTY
(Member's Statement)
Dr R T RHODA (New NP): Madam Deputy Speaker, the children of South Africa are the future of our country, and if 60% of South Africa’s children live in abject poverty and hunger, our future looks bleak. According to the Minister of Social Development, the worst affected provinces are the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal where about two thirds of children face severe deprivation and hunger. It is also of concern that the latest unemployment figures released by Statistics SA reveal that about 5,3 million people in South Africa are unemployed, and many of these people are parents. This means that they cannot provide their children with the most basic nutritional necessities, and that every day is a battle for survival.
We have to ensure that all communities are aware of the social grants, and know how to apply, so that all children who will qualify for social grants have access to them. Measures must also be taken to root out corruption and maladministration that result in millions of rands earmarked for poverty alleviation projects not being spent. It is a disgrace if available funds are not spent.
The New NP urges all government departments involved in poverty alleviation to urgently address all the issues that are preventing poverty alleviation from reaching the most vulnerable of our communities. We cannot allow the continuance of a situation where a single plate of food has become a luxury for more than half of South Africa’s children. I thank you.
ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
(Member's Statement)
Mr R P ZONDO (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, 27 Israeli pilots have sent a letter to the Israeli airforce, declaring their refusal to carry out operations in Palestinian territories. The contentious decision taken by those pilots should be commended, as the missions they carry out often result in the death of ordinary Palestinians.
The ANC believes that, in the pursuit of peaceful coexistence, parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should work for the implementation of United Nations resolutions. Our own experience taught us that no military might is capable of destroying a legitimate human cause. The ANC salutes the 27 Israeli pilots for taking a stand on the side of peace and human rights. I thank you. [Applause.]
LAND REFORM LAWS
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, I would like to agree with the member who raised the issue of the report that came out on farm attacks that this is not a political issue. I think, for all of us, it would help that we will have an opportunity to look at this issue of rural safety in its broader sense, and also look at how we could build a relationship between communities that stay and work on farms and the farm owners, together with communities that are within their borders.
I would, therefore, like to thank the Ministry of Safe and Security for their work, and pledge that we will work together with them in ensuring that we can strengthen this relationship so that at no time will we continue to have such a situation that is disturbing in the agricultural industry.
I again agree on the issues of land reform laws that, indeed, we need to ensure that they are enforced to protect the lives of all, particularly farmworkers and against land invasion. But it is also true that it is necessary that we perhaps need to raise the level of awareness so that people can take responsibility to ensure that they can utilise those laws effectively and not leave them as good statutes and only deal with issues when problems arise.
On the issue of land restitution, I do agree that it is necessary that we fast-track this. As we speak, to date the commission has settled about 40 430 claims. We know it’s still a little bit of a long way to go, but it is also necessary for us to look at how much commitment is followed by actions because, in most instances, we always hear everybody saying they support land reform and restitution, we need to do more, and we need to fast-track, but then the delays sometimes are caused by the very constituencies who push us to fast-track.
I think we all have a challenge as MPs to ensure that, in the resolution of claims, we also take part in speeding both parties through the process to ensure that we can reach an amicable situation in the shortest possible time. Also, we can ensure that we don’t use this process to enrich ourselves beyond our means, because sometimes the prices that are charged become really unaffordable. I think it is those issues which sometimes bedevil the process of why the restitution, and the resolution of claims, might take a little bit longer.
I would also like to say that it is acknowledged that there is a lot of work that we have to do in ensuring that we keep our agricultural industry, particularly the research capacity, intact. It is also necessary that, as members, we are honest and understand the things that we discuss and agree upon, and not come here and make short political statements that actually don’t take us anywhere. Thank you. [Applause.]
RURAL SAFETY PLAN
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the things that our democracy has been able to do has been to free our people from fear. We, who understand fully well what we need to do to ensure that we implement all the various elements that relate to this democracy, understand this.
When you track the results of elections from 1994 to date, you will see how many people are leaving the laager of fear and joining people who are building democracy in this country. That is why we won in Stellenbosch; why people from the DA wanted to put the fear of hell in people so that they did not vote for us. They voted for us and we won in Stellenbosch. They tried the same thing near Uitenhage, in Despatch, and we won there as well.
What is happening is that, in so far as the commandos are concerned, we’ve said this over and over again, … [Interjections] … that we have area combat units in the police that are responsible for fighting crime there. They are going to be joined by the sector policing units of the SAPS and we have said that people who are part of our volunteer system, including people who are part and parcel of the present members of the commando units, are working on our rural safety plan at the moment.
We have explained this to people who represent organised agriculture and they understand that. We have explained this to many people who want to assist so that we succeed in implementing the demands of our democracy. But people in the DA will not understand this. They will not understand that they are bleeding because people no longer fear this democracy. Members continue to try to use fear as a tool for mobilisation, but it is not going to work, as it did not work in Stellenbosch or Despatch. [Applause.]
EQUALITY LEGISLATION
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Madam Speaker, and the hon Minister of Safety and Security, lest his exuberance gets the better of him. May I say that Edward Said was a great educationist and so, I think, we’ll miss him very much, and his remarkable insights into education.
The honourable leader of the FF is an honourable man. I am grateful that he gave me early notice yesterday that he would be raising it today. Therefore, I think it’s important that we should pay serious attention to what he has said. The accusation that I’ve misled the House is possibly the most serious accusation you can make against a member of Parliament. Therefore, to accuse also the statement of being untrue is to accuse an hon member of speaking lies. That is why, I think, I must treat this seriously and say very categorically that the FF should not feel they’re in a position that they have to apologise or to accept everything that happens in an institution.
I want to say that the equality legislation now is in force. Every public official and institution is obliged, under the law, to vindicate and support the equality legislation. One of the very important things is because it reflects the social mores of our country, it reflects our opposition to racism. We can espouse racism in two ways; namely, a direct form of racism to say, for example, the ASB said that ``the struggle our fathers began will rage on until we die or triumph’’. That’s a direct statement to say, in fact, that the vast majority in this country are wrong. The other way is indirect racism; the effect of what you do is to have racist conclusions.
Therefore, I’ve asked the Vice Chancellor of the Pretoria University to investigate this matter. All I can go by is a Sunday Times story, which has photographs that say so, a poster by an alliance of the FF, the conservative party, and Tuks Afrikaans students. It’s virtually an alliance. I can only go by that. If it’s wrong, then I’ll come back to the FF. Therefore, that is why I say that if your reference is the alliance and the picture here of the FF, CP and TAS, your father - a picture of Paul Kruger - wants your vote. That’s what I meant about there being indirect ways of coming to a conclusion. But if the alliance exists, the climate there drove black students to say they want to graduate and leave this place; they don’t feel comfortable here. That’s fairly widespread.
Also, a correction for the hon member: All the posters were not passed by the authorities. It says here it was by Mr de Wet, an ASB executive member. Then all of a sudden he says clearly: ``Some of the posters were not passed by Mr Moroka.’’ Now I regret to say of the university officials that their colour might be the same as mine, but they make a joke out of this.
I don’t think the posters created the right climate at Pretoria University. The climate is very important where, in fact, large numbers of students feel besieged, isolated, unwanted and that’s the important thing. And my job as a Minister who cares about young people is to say that all our young people should be comfortable in our institutions. [Time expired.]
COEGA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(Minister's Response) The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Madam Speaker, let me respond to the hon Ngiba on the issue of Coega. Let me first of all agree with him. I was fortunate enough to go and look at the project last weekend, as did our President, and I think anyone in the Eastern Cape should go and have a look at this project. It's now a major construction project, the new port is very exciting. The back of the port area where we are developing the IDZ is undoubtedly one of the best industrial locations in the world today.
We would also urge you to look at the induction centre. We’ve developed a new methodology with the Coega Development Corporation of establishing a database of people who could be employed. We’ve put in everyone’s house a form saying that if you are interested in employment, give us the records. When I was there people were going through the induction and training process. The small business enterprises that are part of the project were going through recognition of prior learning accreditation. So it’s a very exciting project.
With regard to the Pechiney smelter, I would caution against any undue excitement about press reports. It’s an immensely complex and big project. Should it take place in South Africa, it would be the largest single foreign investment ever in South Africa. So it’s a complex and difficult project. And, obviously the Alcan merger with Pechiney, which will be decided on by the EU on Monday, could have an impact on the timing of this, but we remain confident that the project is likely to go ahead.
In any event, the interest now being expressed in the Coega IDZ is very strong indeed. So, I think that the Nelson Mandela Metropole in the Eastern Cape as a whole can look forward to some exciting developments in the Coega IDZ. [Applause.]
STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY ON CANCUN MEETING
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, may I thank you for this time to address the House on a matter that is and should be of interest to all South Africans. I will not take you through a blow-by-blow account of the meeting or through the finely honed detail of the contesting text. I wish to take you through what we are fighting for, in the hope and belief that all in the House can empathise with the just and good cause.
My written statement is probably slightly longer than what I hope to say, as I hope it will help the lay person to better understand some of the intricacies of this vast set of agreements that we loosely refer to as the World Trade Organisation. The WTO and Cancun, Mexico, may seem institutions and places that are far removed from the ordinary South African. This is not the case. From time immemorial South Africa has been a trading nation. This is fundamental to our economy and indeed, our society. It emanates from the wealth of our natural resources first mobilised by the trading empire we now refer to as Mapungubve.
As an economy and as a people we are linked to trade. For us it is not possible to extricate development and trade from the wellbeing of our people. So it must be the case that we should all be interested in the structure and equity of the world trading system, which in turn has such an influence on investment. The agreements that fall under the WTO are now very extensive and may well be the largest integrated system of multilateral agreement in human history. Keeping pace is no mean feat.
This observation leads me to the first matter I should correctly report back to this House. It is a matter of pride that I can report that South Africa fully participated in the meeting and all aspects of the events in Cancun. What we did earned respect. What we achieved was the product of our own hard work - the Government, parliamentarians, business, unions and community representatives. As the Minister privileged to lead this delegation, I wish to record my immense personal pride at the ability, passion and very hard work of our delegation, and I believe this pride is worthy of this House’s endorsement.
There has been much comment on events in Cancun and gratuitous allocation of blame as to who was responsible for the failure. The former is welcome as it shows that this is truly a matter of global concern. The latter is in my view disingenuous, as it takes away from the real issues. Both the process and the substance of events in Cancun raise sharply what is at stake if we are to truly and effectively address the fundamental challenge of development in the global economy.
As I have indicated the WTO is a complex system of agreements that encapsulates an attempt by nation states to govern the commerce between them. This is not a new phenomenon. Students of history will know of the centrality of trade to the affairs of human governance. In truth the history of trade relations is largely one of inequality between peoples. In our own times, or at least in the times of some of us, this inequality was explained and measured by many great theorists. Rauol Prebisch is the person associated with this specific linking of trade and development and the formation of the United Nations Conference of Trade and Development in the 1960s. The agreements on trade and related matters were built up in a series of rounds of negotiations within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It was the Uruguay Round that led to the formation of the WTO in 1994. The central logic of this round was that we had to systematise the rules of global trade and make them applicable to all. This needed a new and somewhat unusual institution that administered rules, but where decisions had to be made by consensus. If you reflect on this for a moment you will realise that this is indeed an interesting institution. It is an institution that is very easy to demonise, but more difficult to understand.
In South Africa, as we approached the new democracy, we chose to understand and develop our capacity to engage. We were right to to do so. We entered the very last stages of the Uruguay Round as the National Economic Forum which included the old government, the ANC and Cosatu. However, the outcome of the Uruguay Round was structurally imbalanced in three main dimensions of the relationship between developed and developing. These were the ways in which agriculture was dealt with, the structure of industrial tariff liberalisation and the nature of the additional trade-related matters that were added to the agreement system of the new WTO. The imbalance of the outcome was not for want of trying from those developing countries that participated more fully than the still to be born democracy of South Africa.
Let me give some brief elaboration on each of these, as it will provide the context of what the G22 or G20+ was trying to do in Cancun. The industrial development and the agricultural production of the developed world were heavily subsidised. In the industrial product domain these subsidies came to be self-defeating as trade grew. The Uruguay Round established clear disciplines for industrial products although the developed countries were able to exclude subsidies for research and development, environmental and regional disparities - very convenient if you have the wealth for such support.
In agriculture the process of disciplining subsidies was only set in motion. This is a complex matter but the subsidies were placed in three categories of box. The amber box was acknowledged as being very trade distorting in the sense that it directly impacted on the ability of producers to trade. The blue box distorted trade, but did it indirectly through supporting the level of production, price or income in a way that made it easier to export agricultural surpluses, or because it kept prices stable, also enabling agricultural surpluses. The green box was some form of angel that protected rural areas and the environment. Its angelic nature meant that we should not question it. However, the truth must be that it impacts on rural income and capacity. So how it comes to be in some kind of isolation ward when it comes to trade, requires a certain intellectual alchemy. Like all alchemy it can hide many sins.
That this was not a satisfactory outcome was evident to all other than the commercially partisan, so it was agreed that the process of reform and discipline would have to be taken forward and that this should be done by
- This is agriculture. Regrettably 1999 has come and gone and so has 2001, 2002 and 2003. So a fundamental imbalance remains where the agricultural potential of the developing world remains constrained by the massive wealth transfer by the rich into their agricultural sector. If some aspirant, wealthy developing country tried to apply such mechanisms to their growing industrial capacity they would be violating the rules - rightly so, because it would be destabilising for everyone. But agriculture is sacrosanct only because of the political and economic power of the key subsidising countries.
However, the imbalance existed in the arena of liberalising ie reducing tariffs in industrial products as well. Here careful analysis showed that key areas of industrial production remain protected by the developed economies. This was done by complex agreements in critical products like clothing and textiles. In effect these agreements try to stem the hole in the dyke. Their existence served to massively distort production in these sectors as they were driven by intricate systems of preference, quota and country-specific arrangements. It is interesting to note how the free market and good economic governance are abandoned behind the veil of these agreements.
In truth these were economic and commercial interest groups calling the shots in the world-trade system. More complex means of protection were also left within the system. Selective, very high and relatively high tariffs on specific items were left in place. These are referred to as tariff peaks. More subtle is the effective level of protection on a process. The tariff, for example, on raw cocoa is low and that on chocolate much higher. The chocolate producer, therefore, in Europe has the advantage - in fact a double advantage - since another big ingredient, in the form of milk, is also heavily subsidised. This tariff escalation is prevalent in agriprocessing and metal processing in the system. Despite this, the proportion of trade from the developing world rose markedly after the Uruguay Round. What would have been the benefits if the restrictions had not been there, and what would have been the developmental effects if the restrictions had not been there? However, the harsh truth of the matter is that the minority of developing countries made this advance - and not the majority.
The last area had to do with new burdens placed on the weaker institutional
fabric of the developing world. New agreements were added requiring
relatively sophisticated legal structures. This is costly and even
politically difficult when the political systems are grappling with poverty
and underdevelopment. Even here the choice of new issues is a product of
commercial interest. It is not clear why the matter of intellectual
property should have been chosen ahead of a much more basic matter such as
trade documentation, which is generically referred to as trade
facilitation. Since a bulk of commercially traded intellectual property
rights vests in the developed economies, they chose to protect this
position rather than to generally facilitate trade. In fact, they even
invented new concepts of rights in the form of geographic indications - our
old port, sherry and grappa battle.
After the end of the Uruguay Round in 1994 the developing countries tried
to redress this imbalance. They fought hard, but did not make a lot of
progress. In fact, in Singapore in 1996, at a second ministerial meeting,
further ground was lost in the imbalance when four new issues were added to
the agenda, hence the new issues'' orSingapore agenda’’ in WTO slang.
These were to be some form of agreement on investment, competition, trade
facilitation and extension of a partial agreement from the Uruguay Round on
government procurement rules to all members.
I do not have the time to elaborate on all of these, suffice it to say they are very different in nature and complex in conceptualisation. One needs sophisticated governance systems to effectively address all the intricacies and more so to implement them. In themselves they are not wrong issues and would certainly be addressed as the WTO matures and deals with more issues. However, weighed against the structural imbalance of the world trade system that I have outlined, they are not a priority for the developmental agenda. The hot favourite of trade facilitation is in large measure being addressed by the World Customs Organisation, which is currently chaired by Pravin Gordhan, our own Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service.
The story unfolds. In the build up to Seattle the developing countries tried once again to achieve a redress in the imbalance. However, what we were faced with was a phalanx of new propositions. The EU not only insisted that the Singapore issue should be seen as a package, but wanted to add the environmental and labour standard issues to any new round. The USA ensured
- by intent or by disingenuous conduct - that the talks were held in chaotic conditions and added to this an insistence on the labour standard issue. The result was a fiasco.
In Africa we worked hard to develop common positions. Many trading countries in the developing world spoke to each other and the very effective Cairns Group on agriculture worked to align their positions in the aftermath of Seattle. This painstaking work led to the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar. The situation was, to say the least, unusual, so after the September 11 tragedy these negotiations took place in a security fortress in a Gulf state.
Hard hours of work led to an agreement that did point to the Doha Development Agenda. This was based on the agriculture text defining a clear process forward, with the decisions on the Singapore issues being suspended. The suspension was subtle as it depended on the careful timetable of other milestones in the process, particularly the process on agriculture. Regrettably, the timetable of events did not materialise as was intended. We were held hostage to the EU agricultural reform process. The EU negotiators could not move without the internal process of EU reform being decided upon.
What this shows quite clearly is that the WTO negotiations are political. The sad part about it is that the politics of the developed world retains an increasingly self-defeating privilege, whilst that of the developing world shows increasing frustration. But to try and sanctimoniously define power as the reality of negotiation, and the bitter impotence of injustice as political rhetoric serves no purpose other than to fuel the irrationality of the frustration. Fortunately, there has been a more powerful response to this impasse from the developing world that I will recount shortly. However, to understand it, we need to revert to the sad tale of agriculture.
Within the narrow perspective of EU politics, the agriculture reform process announced in the middle of the year may seem to the protagonists within its coliseum as an achievement. However, for the global reform of agricultural trade and the prospects of agriculture’s contribution to development, it holds only the prospect of gradual and incremental change. As the burden of the developmental backlog becomes heavier - a decade is a long time - and, for those wondering how to sort out the malaise of misallocated surpluses, of course, time is of a different weight.
After little progress had been made in the intense negotiating environment in Geneva, a final-gasp informal meeting of Ministers from some 25 countries tried to find a way out in Montreal at the end of July. When we heard that the EU and the USA had been in detailed and protracted negotiations, the other Ministers, after trying collectively to move the process forward, accepted that the two should try and move forward. To understand why such a process was considered by the other trading nations needs a short explication of how the agricultural agenda had unfolded.
Wisely, the agriculture issue had been crystallised into three main matters, and the fourth was of great significance to many developed countries. These were the questions of support for domestic agriculture that was of a trade-distorting type, amber and blue boxes in the main. However, export subsidies and credits were now treated as specific and separate issues after the wording agreed on in Doha. Here I simplify a little to make matters clearer for the layperson.
The third matter was market access, which relates to the formula used for a generalised reduction of agricultural tariffs. The fourth was the concept of the nontrade considerations. This was previously referred to as the multifunctionality of the agricultural sector, or in lay terms it performed any function within society, the economy or the galaxy that the ingenuity of political process could devise. This last cannot be dealt with in full here, but somewhere in the plot the dreaded geographic indications come back onto the scene.
In Montreal the Ministers felt that the details of the first and second issues - domestic support and export support - could be effectively dealt with by the Geneva process. However, on market access the position looked bleak in that it seemed as if the formula that the EU and Japan had managed to successfully lobby for was looming. Here, I explain in the written text in much greater detail the difference between the Swiss formula and the Uruguay formula. For those who want to understand this, I recommend that you read it. It is an important issue. For reasons peculiar to the internal politics of the USA, they were in favour of a Swiss formula, which is a more aggressive formula in reducing tariffs. The EU and many other countries that shared their views or were beguiled by the preference system that I will make brief reference to shortly, supported the Uruguay formula. Unfortunately, the result of the discussions between the EU and US were perplexing and pointed to some form of accommodation between the USA and the EU that was looking for a quiet life in agriculture: Let’s not rock the boat!
In response to this text, long-standing informal contacts between China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and other developing countries with a real interest in agriculture came together and worked furiously to draft an alternate approach to agriculture. A text was worked on and, eventually, 22 countries subscribed to that text.
What was the position of the G22? It addressed the four pillars, but placed the emphasis on different matters. It did this on the basis of two critical building blocks. The first was the basic starting point that the burden of reform and adjustment lay in the wealthy developed economies where agriculture involved the minority of the population and was generally less competitive yet absorbed massive resources to the detriment of their consumers and overall cost structures. It was not a question of politics or histrionics, only facts agreed on by all dispassionate analysts. So we needed more certain reductions in domestic support - experts knew that the EU offer meant no actual reduction in the payments that would be made by them - elimination of export subsidies at some agreed point, and real market access through a defined blend of the so-called Swiss and Uruguay formulae.
For the developing countries which were in a structurally different position by virtue of larger rural populations and the importance of agriculture in their GDPs, and which would remain facing subsidised agriculture for years to come, their process of adjustment needed to be slower with more safeguards. The degree to which they liberalised their agriculture was open to both negotiation and some possible differentiation since clearly a South Africa and an India were in different positions, although their developmental problems were less dissimilar.
An unusual situation resulted in the tripartite negotiation between the G22, the USA and the EU. However, although we made massive progress in the agricultural negotiations, the Singapore issues came back onto the agenda. I spell out in the written text some of the aspects of why the developed world was divided and why preferences and dependence on preferences were so important. Africa was in fact chaired by Mauritius - a more preference dependent economy is hard to find - and the result was rather chaotic. The G22 absorbed so much of their resources in debating and negotiating with the US and Europe that we probably didn’t have enough time to engage with the rest of the developing world.
The Singapore issues, despite the last minute change by the EU and Japan, eventually led to the stalemate in the talks. The ACP, Africa and LDC countries indicated that they were not prepared to accept even negotiation on trade facilitation. In my text, I use an Afrikaans term which is very appropriate; I think basically they said that, ``We are gatvol’’. This led to the end of the process in Cancun.
A new dynamic in the negotiation did emerge, and that was the immense capacity and expertise that resided in the G22. The key developing countries came of age and will never look back. To now attack Brazil, who should be congratulated for their wonderful capacity, patience and hard work, as some kind of naive ringleader of dreamers, is merely to be looking for the sunset when a new dawn begins to touch the cattle horns.
That we failed is not something to celebrate; it is a setback, and a painful one, since we did make progress. The costs of the setback are high and should not be underestimated. But the problem does not lie in the developing world, it resides in the political systems of the developed world that cannot see the costs of what they are paying for in such large amounts. In the setback, new forces realised that we have capacity and need never ask questions as to the validity of our cause.
In South Africa, we have learnt never to be intoxicated by the fervour of resistance, but to pursue the cause that is right, and we have learnt to know a cul-de-sac when we see it. The G22 is of the same fabric. Now we must work to ensure that the developed world understands that its policies are wrong for all people when it comes to agriculture.
It is a hard time, but we are right. Aluta continua is not something we have to be reticent about in world affairs, no matter what Time Magazine or those who know no just cause may say. I thank you. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Ellis, are you rising on a point of order?
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: We have banned the use of party symbols in this House, but it would appear that the SACP are quite unashamedly walking around handing out their party literature. I wonder if this is allowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon member. I think that members do distribute papers of whatever nature.
Mr C M LOWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, having only had sight of the Minister’s excellent statement a short while ago, it is difficult to respond directly to the issues he has raised there. But, could I immediately, on behalf of the DA, congratulate the Minister, his team, the ambassador to the World Trade Organisation, the chief negotiator and the entire delegation on their leadership and the way they conducted themselves. The DA fully endorses the pride that the Minister has expressed this morning. You have done South Africa proud.
Nobody won in Cancun. According to the World Bank, a successful Doha Round could have raised global income by more than $500 billion a year by 2015. More than 60% of that gain would accrue to developing countries, helping 144 million people out of poverty. While most of the poor countries’ gains would come from freer trade amongst themselves, the reduction of rich countries’ farm subsidies and more open markets in the north would also help. That prize is now lost. Nobody won in Cancun.
Writing in the Financial Times, Martin Wolf says that the collapse of the ministerial meeting was a triumph for the ``abominable no-men’’ of world trade. Leading the charge were France and India, the former dedicated to stopping the European Union offering a decent deal on agriculture and the latter as dedicated to creating a blocking coalition of developing countries against serious liberalisation. Wolf says their tacit alliance won. But the world lost. Nobody won in Cancun.
But, valuable lessons were learned. For the first time in 20 years as we have heard, poor and developing nations led by Brazil, China and India, including South Africa, formed an alliance, the G21 or 22, and united as a single body. Representing half the world’s population and two-thirds of its farmers, it was well organised and professional. Representing diverse interests, it nevertheless stood together and drove one message home: Rich countries, as the most profligate agricultural subsidisers, should make bigger efforts to cut subsidies and free farm trade.
Rejecting the continued ability of rich and powerful nations to bribe, bully and blackmail them with divide-and-rule tactics, the G22 ensured that the rich countries became victims of their own power. The harsh response to the G22 from the United States was perhaps to be expected, given the political realities in a congress where American negotiators are fiercely defensive of their outrageous subsidies. But the G22’s solidarity was empowering. At Cancun, the weak nations stood up to the most powerful negotiators on earth and were not broken.
The lesson is that if this was possible, then almost anything is. Suddenly, the chance for global justice that depends on solidarity for its implementation appears on the horizon. While the WTO may be mortally wounded, the G21 may, if they use their power intelligently, find a way of negotiating together. Perhaps they may even reinvent the WTO as the democratic body that it is supposed to be.
Paradoxically, in fighting so doggedly for a worse world, the developed axis may inadvertently have laid the foundation for the developing nations to engineer a better one. Poor countries’ politicians who have welcomed the collapse are wrong because the Doha round was specifically geared to help them. If the momentum in trade negotiations moves away from the WTO, as now seems to be the case, everyone will lose. But, once again, the biggest losers will be the poor countries.
From the start, countries disowned big parts of the Doha agenda. The EU denied that it had ever promised to get rid of export subsidies. Led by India, many developing countries denied that they had ever signed up for talks on new rules. Others spent more time decrying earlier trade rounds and negotiating new ones. When it came to Cancun, too many countries continued grandstanding in Mexico rather than seeking compromises.
The protection of high-income countries is obviously biased against poor countries. But, less well known is that the barriers imposed by developing countries on imports from one another are even higher. By reducing their own protection, developing countries should make big gains. That is the great challenge for the G21.
If the EU, Japan and the US resolve to retain their grotesque farm policies or if China, Brazil and India refuse to relinquish their current barriers, no negotiation can succeed. That is the core challenge.
Now is the time for world leaders everywhere to step forward too, developing and developed, poor and rich, side-by-side so as to ensure, as the Minister has said, that all humanity should progress. From amongst the tragedy and the lessons of Cancun, that is the greatest challenge of all. [Applause.]
Dr U ROOPNARAIN: Deputy Speaker, hon members, the IFP agrees that a valuable opportunity had been lost with the collapse of the negotiations. But all is not lost. Although the talks fell apart, the countries did come together as the G20-plus. The IFP believes that for too long has the international trade environment been polarised by the North-South divide. Too often it is the rich countries that set the agenda and dominate the agenda.
Also, the WTO negotiations never take place on a level playing field. Most poor countries lack the intellectual capital and financial resources to participate. I believe that a new solution has to be found. Hon members, it is really about people. It is also about the quality of life. And South Africa is not far removed from Cancun, hence the Minister said that Cancun demonstrates a world in contrast.
For example, you have one country in which people are suffering from obesity. In another country people are starving. In one world people spend billions on dietary aids, and in another world one billion people live on less than a dollar a day. Hon members, agricultural subsidies are just one striking example of the selfish, narrow interests of rich countries. Nowhere are the double standards more painfully apparent than in agriculture.
Rich countries continue to subsidise their agricultural sectors to the tune of R1 billion a day, flooding the world markets with their own products at the expense of poor countries. Perhaps Cancun was a line in the sand. But what has clearly emerged is that Cancun cannot be used as a negotiating pawn where rulings and agreements always favour the North. It also became clear that the EU cannot impose its own will and hope that developing countries will fall into line.
The world we live in is unequal and the trade rules should take that into account. The inequality between two countries with different levels of development is unjust and constitutes the most perverse way of perpetuating inequality. The hegemonic race to take hold of markets at any price must stop.
Deputy Speaker, what has also emerged is that the multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank also have similar issues. Like the WTO, these institutions lack global credibility and legitimacy.
Once again, we thank the Minister for his participation and we endorse the statement. We thank you for the excellent work you have done. The message that we must send out in the next round is that if we really care about developing countries, the next round needs to be about development. Development has to be on the agenda.
You said that the global economy must progress so that all humanity progresses, and the IFP fully supports this. I thank you. [Applause.]
Dr R T RHODA: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The New NP congratulates and commends our Minister, our Government, our parliamentarians, our businesspeople, our unions and our community representatives for the very hard hours of work that are put in. We urge them to continue with courage. Aluta Continua, as they say.
Deputy Speaker, considering the fact that clear disputes over agricultural subsidies would dominate the proceedings, and the fact that the developed world spends R300 billion a year artificially propping up its agricultural sector, which is more than six times the amount it spends on foreign aid, the somewhat disappointing outcome at Cancun could perhaps have been anticipated. Along with 20 or so other countries, South Africa threw down the gauntlet, demanding that the Americans, Europeans and Japanese abandon their farm subsidies that are crippling the ability of the developing world to compete.
Whilst we know that the developed world’s politicians are unwilling to risk their jobs back home, they must remember that in order to create a just and better world, sacrifices must be made. We urge leaders and communities of the developed world to begin viewing this matter in a more serious light and urge a fresh, modern and more dynamic approach in the World Trade Organisation negotiations that follow, intricate and complex as they may be.
The developing world, G20, united and acted in a spirit of absolute unity to advance its developmental agenda. This was gratifying to see. Then again there is also perhaps the responsibility of the poorer countries to lower their tariffs, according to some economists. They will also be able to benefit from this. So, it is also, to some degree, a give-and-take situation. Quite clearly, sacrifices have to be made on both sides if we are to advance the process with greater success.
An ideal situation perhaps, where both sides will lower tariffs whilst trading with each other. I conclude, as the Minister did, by saying that:
The problem does not lie with the developing world, it resides with the political systems of the developed world.
I thank you.
Ms C DUDLEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Minister, the ACDP congratulates the Minister and the South African delegation on their stand and efforts during the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun. Our goals are laudable and it is good that we are fighting hard on this front to achieve level playing fields in the area of world trade.
The difficulty we have though is that this process could take years and even decades to achieve. So what are we going to do practically in the meantime? To dilute the impact of the existing situation, surely we need to seriously look at subsidising ourselves in the interim to actively level the playing fields in the meantime. We are not suggesting a shotgun approach, but specific targeting of industries which cannot survive, but which, for the benefit of South Africa, must. It may also be worthwhile doing a study in terms of exactly who will benefit if we do eventually succeed in convincing developed countries to comply with this global initiative. The thought here is that Canada, Argentina and even South Africa, to a certain extent, may benefit, but it is unlikely that other African countries will as the agricultural infrastructure is not there.
The question therefore would be: What must we and other African countries be doing to prepare for such a time? It has been suggested that the highly principled stand of the Africa group was in fact questionable, and that South Africa was right to part company with them and join the G20 too. As most African countries are net importers of food and other agricultural products by large margins, the subsidies which the EU and other farmers get help them to reduce the prices of the produce they export to Africa.
This helps African governments to reduce their overall import bills and placate often restless urban populations. The insinuation is that the fact that subsidies kill much of the business of their farmers is a minor consideration to most of these governments, where business opportunities for officials take priority over the real welfare of the people.
Developing countries have, however, made their voice heard, and this has to be a step in the right direction. Thank you.
Mnr C AUCAMP: Agb Adjunkspeaker, die Nasionale Aksie beywer hom vir die oopstelling van wêreldmarkte en Suid-Afrika moet vrylik daaraan kan deelneem. Wanneer ryk Eerstewêreldlande met regeringsubsidies die totale wêreldhandel destabiliseer wat voedsel betref, is daar nie meer sprake van ‘n vryemark nie. Landbou in Suid-Afrika kan onmoontlik meeding met regeringsubsidies van die ryk eerstewêreldlande. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Deputy Speaker, the National Action is striving for the opening up of world markets and South Africa should be allowed free participation in the process. When rich First World countries destabilise the entire world trade as far as food is concerned, one can no longer speak of a free market. Agriculture in South Africa cannot possibly compete with government subsidies of rich First World countries.]
South Africa and Africa may not become the dumping place of US and European agricultural products. Therefore the NA supports the Minister’s tireless efforts in exerting pressure to free these markets, and to cover the farming community in South Africa. Keep up the good work, the tide will turn. Thank you.
Dr R H DAVIES: Madam Deputy Speaker, the outcome of the Cancun Ministerial and the processes in Geneva that preceded it are in my view the product of a very particular balance of forces that exists within the WTO. This is a balance in which the demands and claims of developing countries for a more equitable trading order can no longer be ignored, even by the powerful vested interests in developed countries. This is so, in the first instance, because issues like agricultural subsidies, which have now created a situation in which a cow in the EU lives on $2,50 a day, compared to many people in the developing world who have to subsist on much less than that; as well as tariff peaks and escalations on products of exports interest to developing countries, and skewed rules and procedures within the WTO, are manifestly unjust and also have repeatedly been identified as significant barriers to development.
These issues can also no longer be ignored because developing countries are now much better organised, and much more effective participants in multilateral trade negotiations. However, while the balance of forces is such that these claims cannot be ignored, it is not yet such that there is universal acceptance that the priority challenge in the words of the Doha Declaration is to place ``the needs and interests of developing countries at the heart of the WTO’s work programme’’.
In the detailed negotiating processes taking place in Geneva after Doha, and ahead of Cancun, negotiators from developed countries, responding to the demands of powerful vested interests in their own countries, continued to operate on the basis that they should seek to minimise concessions to developing countries, and that for every concession that they were finally forced to make, they should extract a huge pound of flesh in return.
It was this pattern of bargaining that, in my view, led to the negotiating processes in Geneva, ahead of the Cancun Ministerial, missing many deadlines and failing to produce sufficient momentum towards something that could credibly be placed before the Cancun Ministerial as progress towards a development round.
At Cancun itself, negotiators from the rich and powerful countries pursued their now traditional negotiating strategy of combining resistance to demands of developing countries, particularly on agricultural trade, with hardball demands of their own on the Singapore issues, and also on nonagricultural market access. As usual, they demonstrated flexibility and showed their bottom line only at the very last moment. This, in the context of what had occurred in Geneva, ahead of Cancun, was a serious miscalculation, and the main reason, in my view, why Cancun adjourned without reaching substantive agreement.
The outcome of Cancun has clearly created a new reality and context in global trade negotiations. The fact that Cancun did not adopt a substantive agreement does not mean that the WTO process, mandated by the Doha Ministerial, has ended. The issues debated at Cancun will continue to be grappled with by officials negotiating in Geneva, and the outcome of these processes will eventually have to be presented again, but to Ministers.
The WTO must, therefore, continue to be seen as a focus in the struggle for a more equitable and development-focused multilateral trading system. In my view progress will depend on finding ways to push forward the case that we, along with other developing countries, have raised, but not yet won, namely, that promoting an equitable and development-focused multilateral trading system is the absolute priority for world trade at this particular time.
At the same time as we engage in the WTO, however, we need to be aware that the outcome of Cancun will fuel the tendency towards selective bilateralism on the part of the major trading blocks. The US has already announced that it will be seeking to build a coalition of the willing in the area of trade, and that this is not open to those which the US trade representative has described as seeking freebies.
It was a great privilege for me to have served as a member of the South African delegation led by Minister Erwin. As a number of speakers have already indicated, the big new development in Cancun was the emergence of the group described either as the G22, or sometimes as the G20+. This alliance of leading, progressive developing countries emerged at Cancun as a major force, and I do not therefore agree that the outcome was one where nobody won. In fact, I think that this development was a major victory for developing countries.
I want to commend Minster Erwin for the pivotal role that he, along with his ministerial colleagues in other countries, played in conceptualising, working for and consolidating this alliance ahead of, and at, Cancun. Progress in my view requires consolidating and building on this process.
The G20+, at present, is an alliance within the WTO on the single issue of agricultural trade, but it has great potential to become much more than that. In fact, it can become an economic alliance, in its own right, of the developing world. Such a project, I believe, needs to command priority attention in the months and years ahead. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate) The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, we are now earnestly preparing for the country's third democratic elections to be held in 2004. At the moment there are no legal mechanisms governing the electoral systems to be used for these elections. You will recall that the 1999 elections were conducted in terms of the transitional arrangements set out in schedule 6 to our Constitution. In fact, section 46 of the Constitution requires Parliament to pass an Act in terms of which an electoral system can be determined.
In an attempt to find the most appropriate electoral system for our country, I appointed the electoral task team under the chairmanship of Dr Frederick Van Zyl Slabbert in 2002. The electoral task team’s brief was to investigate an electoral system best suited to our needs and to formulate the parameters of new electoral legislation in order to prepare for the scheduled national and provincial elections in 2004 and beyond.
Unfortunately, the approval of this task team was delayed for about a year within the Cabinet process. Once appointed, the task team proceeded to do its work with alacrity and efficiency. It even held an international conference which gathered a large number of domestic and international experts together with representatives of all political parties, stakeholders and role-players.
The electoral task team reported by means of a report of the majority which was, in fact, the report of the electoral task team, as well as the report containing minority views. During its work the electoral task team reached consensus that there are four main elements to be considered in the formulation of an electoral system relevant to the needs and aspirations of South Africa, namely, simplicity, accountability, representivity and efficiency.
In reviewing the present electoral system the task team concluded that the present system meets the other requirements but lacks sufficient accountability. Therefore, in its majority report the task team suggested an improvement on the present system which would increase the number of constituencies in order to provide for greater accountability. It also suggested that the crossing of the floor should not be allowed. In its minority views the report proposed that the present system be kept, warts and all.
The task team proceeded from the original terms of reference which I gave them. I stressed that the electoral law is somehow unusual amongst all the pieces of legislation this Parliament is called upon to adopt under the Constitution. In fact, the electoral law determines the compact between voters and their representatives.
Effectively, it is the employment contract between us as members of Parliament and our masters, the people of South Africa, whom we are supposed to serve. As such, it is improper for that contract to be written by the employees and imposed on the employer, which is the people of South Africa.
For this reason, I mandated the electoral task team to consider that the Electoral Law cannot belong to political parties alone, even though political parties were the main key role-players to be consulted. However, the Electoral Law cannot belong only to political parties and must reflect the needs and aspirations of the South African people. This is a matter in which there is a peculiar and endemic potential conflict between our interests as members of Parliament and those of the South African people whom we represent. This consideration prompted me to appoint members to the task team who are representatives of civil society as well as experts who are familiar with the needs of our democracy.
I then submitted the report to Cabinet for a decision. Cabinet decided that electoral legislation be drafted in line with the minority recommendation. The proposed electoral system for the 2004 elections is incorporated in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill which I now have the pleasure and privilege of presenting to this House today.
Besides accommodating the electoral system, the Bill also seeks to amend certain provisions which have now become obsolete in both the Electoral Act of 1998 and the Electoral Commissions Act of 1996. The enactment of the Local Government Municipal Electoral Act of 2000 provided for the electoral system for municipalities so that the Electoral Act of 1998 now applies to municipal elections only to the extent that the Municipal Electoral Act does not provide.
The Bill also seeks to introduce a measure in terms of which disabled voters could be assisted, as well as provisions dealing with mobile voting stations, especially in our rural areas. Effectively, in spite of minor amendments, in the core of its substance this Bill reflects the legislation which is presently in force and in terms of which all of us were elected, except that it registers the possibility of the crossing of the floor which was not part of the original mandate in terms of which all of us were elected.
Members will remember that during the budget debate I had committed myself to submit to Cabinet provisions in this Bill which would allow our South African citizens abroad to vote abroad. As you know, the Bill provides for voting abroad, but only for our officials working in missions, and does not allow for our nationals abroad to exercise their franchise abroad.
I did submit to Cabinet the proposal of allowing our nationals to vote abroad, but Cabinet decided that the matter should be left as set out in the Bill. However, Cabinet decided that all prisoners should be disenfranchised, except those awaiting trial. The portfolio committee has maintained a Bill in adherence with these features which emerged during Cabinet deliberations.
The schedule containing the proposed electoral system for the National Assembly and provincial legislatures seeks to retain the current electoral system. The system provides for 400 seats in the National Assembly to be filled in an election where voters vote for a party. The party is allocated a number of seats proportional to the percentage of the total number of votes attracted by the party and the seats are filled from nine regional lists of candidates, topped up, if necessary, from the national list of candidates.
The proposed amendment Bill also retains the current system for the provincial legislatures and further regulates the modalities of conducting elections and the allocation of seats in the National Assembly and provincial legislatures. It must be considered that the electoral system of a province may be changed, in the case that it adopts by means of a provincial constitution, legislative procedures and structures which are different from those which are set out in our national Constitution, for instance, a bicameral system.
In adopting a minority report of the electoral task team, Cabinet released a statement in which it suggested that the report of the majority of the electoral task team and its attached Bill, which aimed at increasing the overall accountability of the electoral system, could be considered by the Parliament which will be elected at the next general elections next year.
Obviously, part of the recommendation of the task team has somehow been precluded now because of the amendment to our Constitution which allows for the crossing of the floor. However, these are issues which the next Parliament will need to consider if the statement that Cabinet made is, indeed, going to be implemented after the elections next year.
I wish to thank the portfolio committee for the alacrity and speed with which it processed this Bill. Certain members of this House saw fit to criticise me for the timeframe within which this Bill was formally introduced in Parliament. However, for the record, such criticisms are not deserved. Setting aside that the analysis of the decision of the task team was delayed for about a year, I brought the matter to Cabinet on time for more extensive debate and deliberations to take place in this Parliament.
However, it was decided that the minority report of the task team had to be implemented by means of a constitutional amendment, while I felt that an ordinary law would have sufficed. Therefore, the entire matter was moved to the Department of Justice which was re-engaged in the drafting of the relevant legislation. During such exercise it was decided that the matter could be handled by means of ordinary legislation and, therefore, was brought back to my department where it was finalised in due course and within good time.
However, it was delayed in Cabinet because of discussions on prisoners’ voting rights, voting abroad, mobile units and other issues. I regret that members of the portfolio committee did not have enough time to work on this Bill as they would have liked. I do not feel that I should bear the brunt of their annoyance because I am not responsible for the delays or, as you can see, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that those who try to apportion blame to me for the delay were playing cheap, party politics.
I must also stress that the report of the task team has been available now since the beginning of the year and that the present Bill reflects laws in terms of which we have all been elected and with which we are obviously all very conversant. I also wish to thank Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and the members of the electoral task team for the excellent job they performed.
They have collected a wealth of material and information during the international conference they organised. Because of the Cabinet decisions to which I referred earlier, the debate on the electoral system must continue so as to ensure that the South African people may enjoy an ever- more perfect, more efficient and accountable democracy.
We must remember that the battle for democracy is never won and we must make a special effort to continue to push forward the frontiers of democracy so as to increase the efficiency of our institutions of Government.
Accountability is the key cornerstone to the functioning of democracy and I trust that this debate may be the beginning of a long process which may lead to greater democracy in our country and to ways and means in which the needs and aspirations of our people can be better fulfilled. We must rely on the power of the South African people to directly contribute to the governance of the country, for instance, by means of referanda.
As we continue this debate we must strengthen ways and means to enable the South African people to exercise an ever greater role in the functioning of our democracy, to an electoral system which serves that purpose and holds its representatives accountable. We must ensure that by means of our actions our democracy is not short-changed. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr H P CHAUKE: Chairperson, I want to dedicate the ANC debate in particular to Ma Mwandi who is in the gallery up there. She comes from the Eastern Cape and is a pensioner. For the past 10 years she has been trying to apply for an ID book. She decided to move to Cape Town, and thought that only then would she be assisted to do so. Her story was covered in a number of newspapers. That is how we managed to pick it up and made the necessary arrangements. This morning she has received her barcoded ID book. [Applause.]
It will be for the first time that she exercises her right to vote and there are thousands of Ma Mwandis in the rural areas who do not have ID books. More than 300 000 ID books are still lying at Home Affairs offices. Voter registration will be starting in the next six weeks. Those people will not have the opportunity to register and to vote. That is our first concern.
Today we are meeting in this august House on the eve of the general elections and on the occasion to debate the Electoral Amendment Bill. Once this Bill becomes law it will set the rules on how the next general elections will be conducted.
However, it is important to give a brief, historical background as to how this Bill came about. Hon members, our country is still in transition. We are still trying to undo the damage done by more than 300 years of apartheid and colonialism, and it will not be an easy task.
Therefore we need the wisdom of all South Africans. Because of this damage our democracy must be inclusive of all South Africans and, at all times, encourage reconciliation, nation-building and make sure that it encourages peace amongst our people.
Xiboho xa Khabinete xa 20 Nyenyankulu a ku ri leswaku va langutisa ku cinciwa ka nawu lowu wa ku hlawula leswi nga endla leswaku ku endliwa komiti leyi Holobye a vulavula ha yona. Komiti leyi a yi rhangeriwile hi Dok. Slabbert. Ntirho wa komiti leyi a ku ri ku lavisisa loko swi fanerile leswaku hi cinca nawu lowo hlawula, hikuva mi ta twisisa leswaku laha hi sukaka kona hi ndleleni yo lunghisa xin’wana na xin’wana lexi hi xi endlaka.
Nkarhi lowu hi nga na wona wa malembe ya 9 lama hundzeke swi tikombile leswaku a swi fanelangi leswaku hi cinca Nawu lowu sweswi. Holobye va boxile hilaha Slabbert task team yi tirheke hakona ni mafambiselo ya yona. Mbulavurisano lowu veke kona a ku vitaniwa mintlawa ya tipolitiki hinkwayo leyi nga kona laha Palamende. Mintlawa leyi hinkwayo a yi ri na vayimeri lava a va tshama eka komiti leyi Holobye va nga vulavula ha yona ya Slabbert.
Vunyingi bya vayimeri lava va pfumerile leswaku ku nga vi na ku cinca ka Nawu wo fambisa minhlawulo eAfrika Dzonga. Hi ndlela yaleyo, nawunyana lowu hi nga na wona namuntlha hi wona wu nga ta fambisa nhlawulo lowu hi yaka eka wona lembe leri taka.
Xin’wana xikulukumba ndzi lavaka ku khensa i vutirheli bya task team leyi, leyi koteke ku hlanganisa vanhu hinkwavo ku katsa na vanhu lava nga riki swirho swa Palamende. Ku landziwile na vanhu emakaya laha ku nga va na nhlangano ku vulavuriwa hi Nawu lowu. (Translation of Xitsonga paragraphs follows.)
[The Cabinet took a decision on 20 March to look at the possibility of changing the Electoral Act. A task team that the Minister referred to earlier was established in that regard. This task team was headed by Dr Van Zyl Slabbert. The mandate of this committee was to conduct research on whether it was appropriate for the Electoral Act to be amended. Hon members know that if there is a need to amend an Act we will amend it.
In the nine years of our democracy it was found that it was not necessary to amend the Electoral Act. The Minister also stated that Slabbert’s task team consulted all political parties in Parliament, and each party was represented in the task team.
Most of the political parties were of the opinion that the Electoral Act should not be amended. Therefore, the Electoral Act that we have at the moment will be used to conduct upcoming elections next year. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the task team which arranged meetings with members of the public, and discussions around the electoral law were held.]
Some of the terms of reference developed for the task team were to develop specific proposals identifying a preferred electoral system to be canvassed with the offset role-players and stakeholders, identify and control constitutional parameters, identify the list of options available within the concrete circumstances of our country, canvass preferences and views of relevant role-players and stakeholders, with specific regard to political parties in respect of the list of identified options.
Hileswi ndzi nga swi hlamusela leswaku hi ndlela yaleyo a va ringeta ku ri un’wana na un’wana a va a ri endzeni ka ndlela leyi. [This is what I have already explained, namely, that with this process we wanted to involve as many people as possible.]
Jwale, seo ke batlang ho se hlalosa haholo ke hore, komiti ena mosebetsi oo e o entseng ke o makgethe haholo, hobane qeto e nkilweng ke kabinete ha e tla fana ka tlaleho yona, jwaloka ha ke hlalositse hore ba nkile qeto ena ka la 20; ha ba ne ba fana ka tlaleho bongata ba mekga ya dipolotiki bo bontshitse hore ha bo dumellane le hore ho fetolwe molao wa ho tsamaisa dikgetho.
Mme ho na le mekga e meng e ileng ya bona hore ho tlamehile hore ho fetolwe mme, ho behwe molao o tlang ho dumela hore ditho di kgethwe ke didika kapa mabatowa a tsona mme, mekga e jwalo ka DA ke yona e dumellaneng le ntlha ya hore molao ona o fetolwe. Le ha le jwalo boholo ba mekga bo dumellane ka hore molao ona o se ke wa fetolwa. Jwale, ntlha e thabisang haholo, e tla boelang e re utlwisa bhloko, ke hore dikgetho tsena di tla ba teng mme, di tla be di bile lokolohile, di hloka leeme.
Empa bothata ke hore batho ba habo rona, ba bangata ba ke ke ba kgona ho ingodisetsa dikgetho tsena. Ke bothata boo re nang le bona bono. Re etsa jwang he, rona re le Palamente? Ke rata ho sebedisa monyetla ona, ho botsa hore na rona re le Palamente, re etsa eng ho fihlella batho ba habo rona ba bangata ba leng mahaeng le ba leng ditoropong, ba sa tlo bang ba kgona ho ya ingodisetsa dikgetho tsee?
Jwale, mekga ena ya bohanyetsi, haholo-holo DA, e qadile ho etsa lerata, e bitsa batho ba mose ho mawatle hore batho ba Afrika Borwa ba leng ka ntle ho naha le bona ba fumantshwe monyetla wa ho kgetha. (Translation of Sesotho paragraphs follows.)
[Now, what I would like to explain even more elaborately is that the work that was done by this committee was very neat, because the conclusion made by Cabinet when it gave this report, and I have explained that they made this conclusion on the 20th, was that most of the parties indicated that they did not agree with the idea that electoral laws should be changed.
There are some parties which decided that the laws should be changed, and that a law that allows members to be elected by their districts or constituencies should be put in place. Parties like the DA are the ones which agreed with the proposal of changing this law. However, most parties agreed that this law should not be changed. So, one thing that makes us happy, and yet also makes us sad, is that these elections will take place and they will be free and fair.
However, the problem is that most of our people will not be able to register for these elections. That is the problem that we are faced with. What should we, as Parliament, do in this case? I would like to take this opportunity to ask what we, as Parliament, should do to reach the numbers of our people, in the rural areas as well as in the urban areas, who will not be able to go and register for these elections.
These opposition parties, especially the DA, are now making a noise, calling people from abroad and saying that South Africans who live out of the country should also be given the opportunity to come and vote.]
There was a court ruling when the New NP took the IEC and the Government to court. I am not going to waste my time on that. Members can look into that court case. I can only give you the case number, which is 1012/99. I thought they were supposed to have learnt a lesson from that particular case. They lost the case, and I want to mention the campaign that the opposition is running, in particular the hon Leader of the Opposition, Tony Leon. He went to London to mobilise South Africans that they must fight and defend their rights against this Government who denied them the right to vote. [Interjections.]
For your information only one person responded during the public hearings. One e-mail came from London after a huge meeting was organised by the Leader of the Opposition. That one person is somewhere in London. I communicated with the person and informed him correctly as to what is happening. He then said to me it was fine and he understood. But at the same time we will make sure that we defend our country and protect it very well. They understand the challenge that this country is facing. The challenge that this country is facing is people such as I have just mentioned who do not have ID books.
The department has tried its best. We have called on stakeholders to help because there is a crisis. There is definitely a problem. [Interjections.] The opposition does not have one, because they do not go to villages in the Transkei, Limpopo and Giyani. You do not know those areas. Your only worry is a group of people who, if they really understood that they were South Africans, would have wanted to help. [Applause.]
The problem with the DA is that they are not in touch with what is happening in the country. They should understand that even the commission has confirmed that. The commission has confirmed that special arrangements were made in the last elections. Only 3 000 South Africans voted overseas. Millions of rands were spent on that particular arrangement. Only 3 000 people voted. [Interjections.]
You should ask yourself, hon Mulder, if your interests are in this country, why are you going to mobilise the FF Youth League in London, because we do not have a district in London. All the voters in this country will register in the district where they come from. The FF Youth League in London raised their concern that they wanted to vote, and they did not understand why they were not allowed to vote. If not, they were going to take us to court and all that. Hon Mulder represented them.
The same applies to the ACDP. The committee was flooded with e-mails from the church. Everybody who wrote said he or she was a member of the ACDP. We received thousands and thousands of e-mails and hence they are represented in the committee. They are all here in South Africa.
The question is: How do we make it better to allow for poor people who for 10 years struggled to get an ID book and who were not allowed to vote in the last two elections? How do we do that? How do we help those people? I think it is a challenge that the ANC is going to take head-on. We are not going to even ask anybody to help us. We are going to go to those villages. We are going to get those individuals and make sure that at the end of the day these people will be able to defend the democracy that people died for. [Applause.]
They will be able at the end of the day to defend their gains. The delivery we are making as the ANC, the better life we are talking about, that is what Ma Mwandi is all about today. We are making a difference and we wanted to work together with the DA, but it is obvious that their interest is not here. [Interjections.] Hon Ellis, your interest is not here. You do not know where Ndabankulu and Tsolo are. You move from here to Johannesburg airport and you come back. You cannot argue with us. [Laughter.] [Applause.] [Interjections.]
Now, I want to use this opportunity to thank the IEC and the department, in particular Advocate Malatji and Advocate Kelner and those who have helped us to deal with this Bill in a very short time. We were given only seven days to deal with it. We did it and did it well.
I know that you have now put your motions. The Bill was referred back to the committee where we did not agree, in particular, with section 33. We deliberated on it. We still think you had this belief that the 3 000 voters that you want so much will bring you 20 seats in this Parliament. I think you are wrong.
We have these motions that you have placed today, hon Mulder. We explained our position as the ANC, why we cannot go this route. The lost court case of the New NP confirms the position of the ANC, so I think that some people need help. The opposition and their leader really need help, because he went overseas in order to try and mobilise people.
They really need help because this country is moving in the right direction and the ANC is giving the lead. All members of the ANC, as we go back from here, let us go and mobilise our people. Let us go back and make sure that each and every voter has an ID book and that they also register for the elections. [Applause.]
Mnr I J PRETORIUS: Agb Voorsitter, ek sal ‘n bietjie later met die agb voorsitter, mnr Chauke, afreken. Ek wil net graag sê dat as die ANC Regering meer geld vir Binnelandse Sake gee dan kan hulle hul administrasie in die Oos-Kaap ook opknap. [Tussenwerpsels.] Daar is veral een klousule wat ek graag vandag wil bespreek en dit is klousule nege. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr I J PRETORIUS: Hon Chairperson, I will deal with the hon chairperson, Mr Chauke, a little later. I would just like to say that if the ANC Government gives Home Affairs more money they can also improve their administration in the Eastern Cape. [Interjections.] There is one clause in particular that I would like to discuss today, and that is clause 9.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Order, hon Pretorius.
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: On a point of order: I can hardly hear, not because I’m older than most of you, but because the noise is a disgrace.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, can we afford the Minister the opportunity to listen to the debate. He has to respond at the end.
Mnr I J PRETORIUS: Klousule 9 is die mees omstrede maatreël in die wetsontwerp en dit gryp op die oomblik die verbeelding van baie mense in die land aan omdat dit die stemreg van Suid-Afrikaners wat tydelik in die buiteland werk of studeer, gaan wegneem. Indien ek genoeg tyd het, sal ek ook verwys na klousules 7, 25 en 31, maar ek dink die agb Minister het die saak redelik duidelik gestel waarom daar onder andere al hierdie amendemente aangebring is aan die Kieswet.
As die ANC ernstig is dat jongmense na die land moet terugkeer, gee dan aan diesulkes die reg om in die buiteland te mag stem. Dan kry julle in die proses ook dalk ‘n paar stemme, wie weet.
Ek wil eerder vir u sê … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr I J PRETORIUS: Clause 9 is the most contentious measure in the Bill and it is currently gripping the imagination of many people in the country because it will remove the right to vote of South Africans who are temporarily working or studying abroad. If I have enough time, I will also refer to clauses 7, 25 and 31, but I think the hon Minister stated the case fairly clearly as to why, inter alia, all these amendments were made to the Electoral Act.
If the ANC is serious about young people returning to this country, give them the right to be able to vote abroad. Who knows, in the process you might also get a few votes. I would rather like to say to you …]
I think the ANC in Cancun is the snakepit in this matter. [Interjections.] The Electoral Act is the rules drafted by Parliament and which must be applied by the IEC to ensure a free and fair election.
In section 19 of the Constitution of our country the fundamental principle
of participation in an election is set out: To vote in elections for any
legislative body established in terms of the Constitution ....
Section 36(1) of our Constitution affirms that a constitutional right can only be limited if it is reasonable and justifiable to do so. Consequently there is no doubt about this matter.
Now I would like to give you some history, sir. At a meeting of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs last week, the IEC made a submission on special votes for persons abroad. Their proposal reads as follows:
Temporary absence from the Republic, where he or she ordinarily resides, for one of the following purposes, but in this case, only in an election for the National Assembly:
(i) Study at a tertiary educational institution; (ii) to perform activities flowing from his or her employment in the Republic;
(iii) to pursue business activities.
It was in fact the last purpose, ``to pursue business activities’’, that eventually became the major issue and a bone of contention.
Tydens ‘n bespreking op Dinsdag, 16 September 2003, het ek dit duidelik gestel dat die DA ten gunste daarvan is dat Suid-Afrikaners wat tydelik in die buiteland werk of studeer, geregtig moet wees om te stem. [During a discussion on Tuesday, 16 September 2003, I stated clearly that the DA is in favour of South Africans who are temporarily working or studying abroad being entitled to vote.]
On the next day the discussion was continued and I proposed on behalf of the DA that the interpretation of subclause (iii) be widened to provide that South African citizens who are temporarily working abroad should be entitled to vote. Na ‘n lang bespreking is ‘n wydlopende interpretasie van subklousule (iii) eenparig deur die komitee aanvaar, en het vrede geheers. Die VF het selfs sy voorstel oor spesiale stemme teruggetrek nadat die nuwe interpretasie van subklousule (iii) aanvaar is. Daar sit die agb lid dr Mulder, vra hom. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[After a long discussion a wide interpretation of subclause (iii) was unanimously accepted by the committee, and there was peace. The FF even withdrew its proposal on special votes after the new interpretation of subclause (iii) was accepted. The hon member Mr Mulder is sitting overk there, ask him.]
The New NP’s member in the committee did not offer any assistance. In fact, he wanted the entire subclause to be deleted. [Interjections.] At the portfolio committee meeting on Friday, 19 September 2003, the matter took a new turn when the Bill had to be voted upon.
The IEC and the state law adviser suggested at the meeting that the previous interpretation attached to subclause (iii) was too wide. The ANC majority in the committee then steamrollered the new measure through the committee. I want to remind the ANC of what Shakespeare once said:
Oh! It is excellent To have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant.
[Applause.] This is the arrogant way in which the ANC treats the constitutional rights of South Africans. But this was still not the end of the matter.
The portfolio committee met again on Tuesday, 23 September 2003, and at this meeting matters took a new turn. The ANC declared that they wanted to give further consideration to the question of foreign votes and suggested that the other parties could also move amendments if they wanted to. The DA accordingly submitted an amendment to the Secretary of Parliament, and it appears on the Order Paper today.
Everybody was highly surprised when it transpired that the proposal on special votes, as put forward by the IEC and agreed to by the committee, was literally and figuratively thrown out of the window in favour of a new amendment proposed by the ANC. [Interjections.] This action taken by the ANC is highly objectionable, to say the least. If this is the way that the ANC wants to manage the parliamentary process, then we are heading for a very chaotic state of affairs. [Interjections.]
There is no logical reason. I want to emphasize that there’s no logical reason why the ANC and the Government should in any way limit a person who is abroad temporarily with regard to his or her right to vote. The only persons who should not have the right to vote are South Africans who have emigrated or have taken up permanent residence abroad.
Met die aanvaarding van die wysiging van die ANC sal die grootste gros van Suid-Afrikaners wat volgende jaar tydens die verkiesing in die buiteland sal wees nie hul stem kan uitbring nie. [With the adoption of the ANC’s amendment most of the South Africans who will be overseas during the election will not be able to vote.]
Thousands of South Africans living abroad are temporarily practising a variety of professions such as medical doctors, teachers, nurses, engineers, etc.
En daar is goeie redes daarvoor. Werkloosheid is een van die groot probleme. [And there are good reasons for that. Unemployment is one of the big problems.]
Efforts are being made by Government circles to draw South Africans back to this country and by so doing to put a stop to the so-called brain drain. In my opinion, the Government should rather act proactively. Give the young people their right to vote, and this will encourage them to return to their fatherland and to participate in building up the economy of our country. Dit is jammer dat die ANC vandag hierdie bekrompe benadering het en ons beeld van die land afbreek. [It is a pity that today the ANC has this narrow-minded approach and is damaging our image of the country.]
The arrangement that a voter in a foreign country may cast his or her vote in particular circumstances is a principle that is universally accepted.
Waarom die ANC vandag so verkramp is, gaan my verstand te bowe. [Why the ANC is so narrow-minded today is beyond me.]
The DA will definitely oppose the Bill.
Kom ons kyk ‘n bietjie na van die punte van kritiek. Dit sal baie kos. Die begroting van Binnelandse Sake vir die geld wat vir die OVK bestem is, is R640 miljoen. Die OVK het op ‘n stadium gesê dit mag R3 miljoen kos - dit beteken 0,47% van die begroting. Dan word daar gesê: ``There are many uncollected ID books.’’ (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Let us look at the points of criticism. It will be expensive. The budget of Home Affairs regarding the money set aside for the IEC is R640 million. At one stage the IEC said that it could cost R3 million - that means 0,47% of the budget. Then it is said that: ``There are too many uncollected ID books’’.]
I made a plea last week that the Government should make more money available so that we can assist those people to get their ID books. And I must say that I know the Eastern Cape; I was born there. I know Tsolo, I know Tsomo and Cofimvaba; all those places. [Laughter.] But we also requested the Department of Home Affairs on the uncollected ID books. There may be duplications. There may be people who have already died. Please sort that out. But that doesn’t mean we are against the distribution of uncollected ID books.
Furthermore, the embassies in overseas countries will become the voting stations. Ballot papers were already sent there. Why will that create so much cost to send additional ballots to the embassies abroad?
I would like to thank the chairperson. During the committee meeting we had many discussions and I must be fair to him. On many occasions he gave us ample time to discuss the matter, and I thank him for his leadership. [Applause.]
Prince N E ZULU: Hon Minister, Ndabezitha! [Royal salute.] Siyabonga. [Thank you]. We are happy to see you have returned home from a recent mission abroad. Home sweet home. Although the Department of Home Affairs has difficulty in accessing sufficient funds for its programmes, I feel that I must commend the Government of the Republic in general, and the Department of ``Binnelandse Sake’’, [Home Affairs] in particular, for ensuring that every election in the country is preceded by a process of cleaning up legislation that ushers in that particular election.
This process started way back with the Electoral Act of 1993, followed by the Electoral Act of 1998, and up to this day where we are debating the cleaning up of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, 2003.
However, the IFP suffered political hypertension yesterday when the ANC reverted to the original version of clause 9 of the Bill. This clause had been improved by the portfolio committee by the addition of other categories of persons that would allow more citizens outside the country to vote.
The right to vote is guaranteed in the Constitution, but limitations can be effected where necessary. The portfolio committee amended and parties supported that amendment providing for an increase in the categories of people allowed to vote. Such increased categories included students at tertiary institutions, citizens performing activities flowing from their employment in the Republic and others pursuing business activities abroad.
The addition of these categories was a way towards a constitutional obligation that all citizens have a right to vote. The IFP objects to that exclusion as it constitutes a further erosion of the right to vote by citizens abroad. [Interjections.]
We welcome the fact that in every election we have not had major hurdles in disenfranchising citizens who qualify to vote. It is the intention of the department, the Independent Electoral Commission and the Government to afford every qualifying citizen a vote in the coming election. One would raise the spectra of the Bill having come late if one knew the date of the coming election.
However, it is an unfortunate scenario that some of the citizens committed acts that could not allow them to participate in the process, and that others could not collect their identity documents from Home Affairs offices. And by so doing, they cannot participate in the process.
The Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs has done all it could to secure a place in the process for these citizens. But to this day the decision is still left with individual voters to do what is right in order to exercise their right to vote. Even on this podium one must urge those who did not collect their identity documents from the offices where they applied for them to go and collect them and register as voters as soon as they can in order for them to vote on the election day. The hon Minister of Home Affairs made this even easier by offering free photos. People not collecting their identity documents they themselves have applied for, raises many questions. And one of those questions is: Is there some ulterior motives?
It is not the function of Home Affairs to distribute identity documents, but it is the responsibility of the applicant to collect his or her ID. We have to applaud those officers who in their wisdom had to walk an extra mile in helping with the distribution of these documents. We would encourage other officers working in tandem with stakeholders also to help with the process of distribution.
Those of us who were there in 1994 expected the 2004 elections to be ushered in by a constituency-based election. We appreciate the initiative taken by the hon Minister of Home Affairs to keep his side of that mandate by appointing an electoral task team under the chairmanship of Dr Van Zyl Slabbert to conduct research on this constitutional mandate. We equally thank individual members of the task team for the work that they’ve done and for the unbiased results they produced.
It was quite interesting to see the ANC with its huge majority supporting a minority view of the task team which support necessitated this House to amend the Electoral Act of 1998 in order to hold next year’s election on the basis of that minority view. Those are the dynamics of democracy; bizarre as they are, but they are in order and democratic.
The IFP nonetheless supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S PILLAY: Chair, it is common knowledge that this legislation is absolutely essential. This Bill sets itself apart from other Bills as it deals directly with elections to the national Parliament and provincial legislatures. Because it is so, we saw how deep emotions were evoked by certain persons. I’m not going to respond to the very economical use of facts by the DA representative, I’ve other things to discuss.
There are many clauses in the Bill, including provisions on whether prisoners should be allowed to vote or not - if yes, what category of prisoners? There are also clauses on hours of voting; and assistance to certain voters who are physically disabled - including blindness and other visual impairment - who may be assisted by a person of their own choice. It also provides more clarity in terms of route changes and locations of mobile voting stations, and for parties that change their names.
A very important section deals with conditions that apply whereby the IEC may refuse to register a political party. Those conditions are where the concerned party portrays propagation and incitement of violence or hatred, or causes serious offence to any section of the population on the grounds of race, gender, sex, ethnic origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture or language; and, where there is an indication that persons will not be admitted to membership of the party or welcomed as supporters of the party on the grounds of race, ethnic origin or colour.
The Bill, obviously, allows people who are infirm, disabled and pregnant to apply for and cast special votes, and that is right and proper. The vulnerable of our society should be afforded every protection by legislatures and the state’s implementing agencies.
I now point out that according to my consultations with the state law advisers - and their opinion was confirmed by the legal team from the Department of Home Affairs - geographical location is not a consideration when registering and voting are concerned, and where it affects the infirm, disabled or pregnant persons whereby such condition prevents them from being at the voting district where they registered to vote, it will be for this House to state whether or not that was the intention of that piece of legislation.
It is a constitutional right of every South African to register as a voter and to vote. The New NP supports all the provisions of the Bill and moves an amendment to clause 9 as indicated in the Order Paper of today. It would be ideal if the amendment proposed by the New NP could be accepted by this House. However, if the amendment is not accepted, the New NP will still support the Bill.
We adopt this position in the light of the fact that in 1999 we took to court the matter of whether or not South Africans living abroad were entitled to be provided with facilities to register and to vote. The case number was mentioned by the chairperson in which the applicant was the New NP and the respondents were the Chairman of the Independent Electoral Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer of the IEC, the Minister of Home Affairs and the Government of the Republic of South Africa. The same matter, case no 10508/99, was enthusiastically supported by the FA and both cases were dismissed by the High Court.
In conclusion, it would be downright racist, devious and misleading if any party pretended that this is a new matter and that circumstances have changed in any way since the 1999 decision. Such deviousness would be designed to mislead voters in the hope of obtaining some of their votes. It would be a hope in vain. Thank you. [[Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Chairman, hon Minister, at the outset of the discussions on the Bill the ACDP also voiced its objection that no provision had been made for special votes for South African citizens who, for a variety of reasons, were overseas.
Our hopes were somewhat raised when the electoral commission’s proposal was accepted that clause 9(i) be amended to allow special votes due to a temporary absence from the Republic for study, employment or business activities. Our cautious optimism was, however, short-lived because a twelfth-hour ANC amendment was accepted yesterday morning that removed any possibility of even this narrow category of persons being entitled to apply for special votes.
Why should special provision be made only for Government officials and their households to vote overseas, whilst many students, employees and businessmen will now not even be able to apply for special votes? There must be thousands of such businessmen who faithfully contribute to South Africa’s gross national product and pay taxes in South Africa, but who are now unable to even qualify for a special vote. It is for this reason that the ACDP garnered a lot of support and it might be mentioned that the SA Council of Churches also supported the view that overseas temporary residents should be allowed to vote.
We find it totally unacceptable that certain prisoners should be allowed to vote, whilst law-abiding citizens who are temporarily overseas are denied an opportunity to vote. Is this exclusion constitutional? The ACDP finds it regrettable that a lengthy state legal opinion was obtained regarding prisoners’ right to vote, whilst the constitutionality of overseas voters was not given the same attention.
The ACDP believes that the exclusion will be in direct contravention of sections 1(d) and 19(3) of the Constitution, which guarantee adult citizens the right to vote in elections. The question arises then whether limitation is justifiable and reasonable. We think not.
Citizens who are overseas will be bitterly disappointed following last week’s announcement that certain categories will be entitled to vote. We believe that everything should be done to protect their right to vote and we are obtaining counsel’s opinion in this regard. In view of the above, the ACDP will not support this amending Bill. I thank you.
Mr P M SIBANDE: Chairperson, Ministers, hon members and distinguished guests …
… okokuqala nje inkulumo yami ngizoyinikela kubo bonke abantu baseNingizimu Afrika. Ngithi kubo i-ANC ithi mabeze bazobhalisela ukhetho futhi futhi bakhumbule nokulanda omazisi babo ukuze bakwazi ukuthi bathole nemali yama-grants uHulumeni abethembise yona.
Inkulumo yami namhlanje ngizoyiqala ngokuxoxa le ndaba. Kwakukhona indoda eyayakhe indlu yayo maduzane nomgwaqo ophithizelayo. Le ndoda yayikhuthele, isebenza zonke izinsuku ihlanza igceke layo. Wonke umuntu owayedlula lapho wayeyibongela futhi eyikhuthaza ngenxa yesivande esihle nokuhlanzeka kwekhaya layo. Khona lapho kwakunenkawu eyayibukela uma le ndoda isebenza futhi izwa uma ababedlula beyitusa ngobunyoninco bayo.
Inkawu leyo nayo yacabanga isu engalenza ngoba nayo ifuna ukubongwa. Yathatha ugodo olude yaluginqa phansi, yehla yenyuka nalo icabanga ukuthi izobongwa njengale ndoda. Klibhi klolo! Abantu bayibuka nje. Abanye bafikelwa ukunengwa nokucasuka. Lokho-ke ngikubhekise kumaqembu aphikisayo ngoba ahlale ephikisa zonke izindlela i-ANC eguqula ngazo izimpilo zabantu.
Abantu bayamthanda uKhongolose futhi bayambonga ngenxa yegalelo lakhe alenzayo emzabalazewni wokuqeda indlala. Izinhlangano eziphikisayo zilibele ukwehla zenyuka njengenkawu, zicabanga ukuthi abantu bakule ngabadi yakithi nasemhlabeni jikelele bazobabonga noma bengenzanga lutho. Isisho sithi umuntu udla izithelo zomsebenzi wakhe. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[… firstly, I dedicate my speech to all South Africans. I would like to tell them that the ANC invites them to come and register for elections. They also need to remember to fetch their identity documents so as to be able to receive the grants that the Government promised them.
I will kick off my speech by narrating the following story. There was once a man who built his house near a very busy road. He was very active and energetic. He cleaned his yard every day. Everyone who passed by praised and encouraged him because of his beautiful garden and the cleanliness of his house. Nearby, a monkey used to observe that man when he did his work and when people praised him for his skillful activities.
The monkey sat down and thought of an idea through which it could be praised as well. It took a long log and started to roll it up and down because it expected to be praised, as had happened to the man. But people just looked at it. Others were angered and became contemptuous towards it. I am directing that to the opposition parties because they always oppose all strategies that the ANC employs towards changing the lives of people.
People love and appreciate the contribution of the ANC in the hunger alleviation struggle. The opposition parties are behaving like that monkey which went up and down, expecting the people of our country and those of the whole world to thank them even if they have not done anything. An old adage says that one reaps what one sows.]
The main purpose of the Electoral Amendment Bill is to make sure that the people are able to vote for the national Government and provincial governments, and to elect the leadership from the people’s choice who will lead this country by advancing democracy, but not reverse our achievements. I would like to remind all the opposition parties that history is divided into two: constructive history and destructive history.
UKhongolose nguye kuphela onomlando owakhayo futhi nguye kuphela ophokophele phambili ngezentuthuko nokuthula emhlabeni wonke jikelele. Kodwa-ke, kulo mkhakha wezomlando obhidlizayo, kunabafowethu nodadewethu abaqoka ukusetshenziswa njengezipanela zobasi babo, ngoba yibo obhongoza nongqoshishilizi abampongoloza kuqala ukuthi zibhuntshe izinguquko kule ngabadi. Ngithi kubo asazi ukuthi izingane zethu bayoziphendula bathini; futhi, uma sonke sesiwufulathele lo mhlaba bayofike bathini koyisemkhulu?
UKhongolose uthi kufanele kube nokuvota okuyisipesheli kulaba abalandelayo: abantu ababona kalufifi noma abakhubazekile noma abazithwele, abantu abalifulathele leli ngenxa yemisebenzi kaHulumeni, abantu abakude kunezikhungo zabo zokuvota ezigcemeni ababhalisa kuzo abangabasebenzi kwezokuvotisa noma amalunga ezokuphepha ayobe esemsebenzini ngesikhathi sokuvota. Isexwayiso sithi wonke umuntu wakule ngabadi kufanele enze isiqiniseko sokuthi ubhalisile esigcemeni sangakubo ukuze abe namalungelo okuvota kule migomo ebekiwe. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The ANC is the only party with a record of being constructive and it is the only party that strives to bring development and peace throughout the world. However, on the destructive side of things, we find that there are some of our brothers and sisters who have chosen to be used as tools of their bosses. They are the ones who vehemently and vociferously shout in order to sabotage the changes in this country. To them I say: We don’t know what they will say to our children. Also, when all of us have departed, what will they say when they meet their forefathers?
The ANC would like to see special voting arrangements for the following categories of people: those who are partially sighted, the disabled and those who are pregnant; those who are in other countries on Government business; those who will be far from their voting stations and who will be working for the IEC, or Defence Force members who will be on duty during the voting period. A word of warning: All people of this country should ensure that they are registered in the voting stations nearest to them in order to be eligible for voting in accordance with the stipulated regulations.]
During the general elections of 1999, the Independent Electoral Commission made a special arrangement for South Africans who are based in other countries to enable them to vote. This was done at enormous financial cost to the IEC: an amount of R11 million. Only 3 000 people voted. Everyone in this House will agree with me when I say that we have limited resources, therefore we need to use the limited resources wisely.
Each one of us here should go out and mobilise our people to go and get their ID documents for them to be able to access their social services from our Government. Our people must be mobilised to go and register on 8 and 9 November for them to be able to vote in the next general elections.
Umbuzo omkhulu uthi: Ngubani okufanele alandele omunye, ngabavoti noma ukhetho? Kunezigidigidi zabantu bokuzalwa lapha eNingizimu Afrika okufanele kube yibo abathola ithuba lokuvota kodwa omazisi babo abasesemahhovisi omNyango wezangaPhakathi, kanti abanye banezinkinga zokuthi umnyango awufinyeleli kubo ngendlela efanele. Kodwa ogimbelakwesabo abakugqiziqakala lokho. Kunokuba kuvote abantu bakithi eNingizimu Afrika, balibele ukuba ngobhongoza ezindabeni zaseZimbabwe.
I-ANC iphakamisa ukuthi, kwabasemajele, bonke abantu ababoshiwe abangakagwetshwa nabangakakhokhiswa inhlawulo kufanele babe namalungelo okuvota, kodwa-ke kufanele kube ngabantu ababhalisa ezigcemeni zakubo ngaphambi kokuba baboshwe. Ngithanda ukukhumbuza izinhlangano eziphikisayo ukuthi i-ANC kuphela enozwelo kubantu bakithi noma bekusiphi isimo. Kufanele kucace njengoba sihlangene kule Ndlu ukuthi onke amaqembu aphikisayo aphikisana nalesi sichibiyelo soMthetho yila maqembu angagqiziqakala ngabantu bakithi abakhubazekile, abangaboni nabazithwele. I- ANC kuphela ebanakekelayo okungangokuba kule minyaka eyedlule indlela ababephathwa ngayo abantu emajele - nesitebele sezingulube besingcono. Abantu bakithi bebebandlululwa nangokudla imbala. Abantu abampisholo bebenikwa ukudla okungenamsoco futhi okungenasilinganiso kunalokho okwakunikezwa abamhlophe.
Ngalokho ngicela ukuthi wonke umuntu waseNingizimu Afrika enze isiqiniseko sokuthi uyovota ukuze sizivikele kulaba ngoba udaba akulona elokuthi abantu abaphesheya kuphela. Bayala nokuthi abantu abakhubazekile baseNingizimu Afrika babe namalungelo angcono okuvota, nokuthi siguqule izindlela zokwenza izinto lapho bevotela khona ukuze bakwazi ukuvota. Ngiyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The biggest question is this: Who should come first between the voters and the election? There are millions of indigenous South Africans who should get an opportunity to vote, but their identity documents are in the offices of Home Affairs. Others are faced with a problem regarding the fact that the department is not able to reach them. But those who are selfish simply disregard that. Instead of focusing on giving our people the chance to vote, they pontificate on Zimbabwean matters.
Regarding prisoners, the ANC proposes that all awaiting-trial prisoners and those waiting to be fined should have voting rights. But they should be people who had registered in their voting stations before they were arrested. I want to remind the opposition parties that the ANC is the only party that is sympathetic to our people, no matter what condition they find themselves in. It should be clear, as we are congregated in this House, that all the opposition parties who are opposed to this amendment are those parties who do not care a bit for our disabled people, the blind and those who are pregnant. It is only the ANC that cares for them. Pigsties were even better compared to the manner in which people were treated in prisons during the previous years. Our people were discriminated against even when it came to food. Black people were given unhealthy food in smaller quantities compared to what was given to whites.
I therefore would like to appeal to every South African to ensure that they vote in order to protect us from these people because the matter does not end with those who are overseas only. They are also against the granting of better voting rights to disabled South Africans and are also against the changing of voting procedures so that they could be able to vote. Thank you.]
The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Minister, do you have a point of order?
UNGQONGQOSHE WEZOKUQONDISWA KWEZIGWEGWE: Sihlalo, nami uSibande ngimshayela ihlombe uma esho njalo. Manje uma ethi uKhongolose kuphela ozwelana nabo bonke abantu abasemajele, mina angiyena uKhongolose kodwa yimina engiphethe amajele ngakho-ke bazwelwa yimi. [Ihlombe.] [Uhleko.] Ngiyabonga.
Mnu P M SIBANDE: Sihlalo, kufanele ngithi uKhongolose ngoba le lapho siphuma khona kunabafowethu abaningi abangobhongoza abangafundi. Singakufihli lokho bahlonishwa bami ukuthi kukhona abafowethu abangamalungu anjengo Louis Nzimande noWilma. Sithi thina makube nendlela engcono ezokwazi ukubalungiselela ukuthi bakwazi ukuzivotela ngokwabo, kodwa kunamaqembu athi cha mabangalungiselwa. Ngalokho i-ANC iyaweseka umThethosivivinywa. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of Zulu paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Chairperson, I would also like to congratulate Sibande on what he has said. Now, if he says it’s only the ANC only that sympathises with all those who are in prisons, I am not an ANC member but I am in charge of prisons and therefore I am the one who sympathises with them. [Applause.] [Laughter.] Thank you.
Mr P M SIBANDE: Chairperson, I have to say it’s the ANC because where we come from, many of our outspoken brothers are not able to read. Hon Ministers, we should not hide the fact that there are members such as Louis Nzimande and Wilma. We are saying that there should be a better way of enabling them to vote on their own but there are parties who say no, things should not be made better for them. The ANC therefore supports this Bill. [Applause.]]
Dr C P MULDER: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, the right to vote is the most basic and fundamental right that lies at the heart of any democracy. We claim to be a democracy and this ANC even goes so far as to boast that we are the most modern democracy in the world.
An HON MEMBER: Yes, we are!
Dr C P MULDER: Is this really true or not? Section 1 of the Constitution lists the founding values of the Republic. Section 1(d) states that universal adult suffrage is one of the founding values of the Republic, entrenched with a 75% majority.
Section 19(3)(a) of the Bill of Rights states, and I quote:
Every adult citizen has the right to vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution …
However, to thousands of South African citizens these words will remain meaningless and will amount to empty, broken promises. For more than two years now the FF has been campaigning that South African citizens who are registered and are temporarily outside the Republic should be allowed to vote in the 2004 elections. This is normal practice in any modern democracy. Even citizens of Burundi who were abroad were allowed to vote in their elections recently. We are not talking about people who have emigrated, but about law-abiding citizens from all communities who are temporarily abroad.
When the original Bill went to Cabinet they were allowed to vote. When it came out of Cabinet they were no longer allowed to vote. Despite this, we believed that common sense and logic would prevail. Last Wednesday we succeeded. The ANC, without any reservations, supported our arguments and proposals that South African citizens who were temporarily abroad be allowed to vote. They were convinced by common sense and basic logic. They voted for and supported what they knew was right.
The committee adopted the amendment that allowed South African citizens who were temporarily abroad, either as students or as a result of employment, or who were there to pursue business activities, to vote. The ANC leadership was not amused. We then saw the most shameful about-face that brought us to the position where, very cynically, this ANC Government made provision that people employed by the state be allowed to vote.
But ordinary citizens who were in the same position were effectively disenfranchised. Evidence before the portfolio committee indicated that they should be allowed to vote. The citizens who signed the FF petitions said the same. The IEC said they could handle this. Even the ANC component who listened and heard the evidence agreed and supported this.
So if you can’t vote next year, thank the ANC leadership. They took your vote away. This morning I received the following email from a young professional currently working in London, and I quote:
I own property in South Africa. I am a citizen, I have the right to vote in my own country. That is not my humble opinion. I pay taxes there, so I should have a say.
Don’t dare call this the most modern democracy in the world again, because it is not. We warned you, so we will see you in court. [Interjections.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Chairperson and hon members … Mr H P CHAUKE: Chairperson, on a point of order: I am not sure if it is parliamentary for the hon Mulder to point his finger at me and say: ``We will see you in court.’’ Could you rule on that, please? [Interjections.]
Dr C P MULDER: Chairperson, I explained that through this Government’s policy, the ANC amended this Bill by taking out the provision that made it possible for our citizens who were abroad to vote, and I said on behalf of the FF that we would take this ANC Government to court, to allow people to vote. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you for that explanation. Hon Mfundisi, please continue.
Mr I S MFUNDISI: An occasion like today reminds one of the words of the late Martin Luther King when he said, and I quote:
In a sense, we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a cheque. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the constitution … they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men …
Yes, black men and white men -
… would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The same can be said of us in South Africa. However, it is obvious that today South Africa is defaulting on this promissory note in so far as the citizens at large are concerned. Instead of honouring the sacred obligation, South Africa is giving the citizens overseas a bad cheque, a returned cheque marked ``insufficient funds’’.
We in the UCDP refuse to believe that the bank of the IEC is bankrupt. After all, it is the IEC that proposed the amendment. They thought they were an independent commission, but have now learnt what they are. Like Martin Luther King, we refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of this nation. We maintain that people don’t just cease to be South Africans, regardless of where they find themselves. Imagine folks such as Mark Shuttleworth, Shaun Bartlett, Benny McCarthy, Lucas Radebe and all others not being allowed to vote after registering as voters. [Interjections.]
If we relish their goals, why not relish their votes? We believe that this is the time for the ANC Government to make real the promises on democracy. Actions should speak louder than words. This Government should realise that the destiny of South Africans abroad is tied up with ours in this country. We should by no means indulge in an ostrich philosophy in matters relating to national elections.
The Bill by and large addresses other concerns relating to elections, but we in the UCDP are put off by this particular section. Countries such as Brazil cater for their citizens at large and nearer home; Senegal is already planning what to do for their people in the coming elections. South Africa should serve as a torchbearer of democracy. On that note, the UCDP will not support the Bill. [Interjections.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Mr Chairman, in the limited time at my disposal, allow me to say the following. A law on elections in a democratic country is a very important piece of legislation. It must advance democracy. It must also ensure that there is no fraud of any kind and that the playing field is level for all participants in the elections.
This Bill says nothing about unequal funding and the excessive funding of the ruling party by the IEC. [Interjections.] If there is to be genuine talk of democracy in this country, the funding of parties must be equitable and should not be based on the 1994 elections, which several observers admitted were not as clean as portrayed in this country and internationally.
Floor crossing, which the PAC believes encourages political prostitution, violates the doctrine of retrospectivity and undermines the whole question of proportional representation. This is not dealt with in the Bill. Self- seekers will, therefore, continue to further their personal interests at the expense of the voters and the poor, whom they falsely claim to represent. [Interjections.]
We agree that some prisoners must vote. They must vote, including members of the Azanian People’s Liberation Army, who are languishing in the jails of South Africa after fighting apartheid, a crime against humanity. [Interjections.] The Constitution is the basic law of the nation. Izwe lethu! [Our land!]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon Pheko! There is a point of order. Hon Bloem?
Mr D V BLOEM: Chairperson, is it in order for the member to make such a big noise? The Minister can’t hear him properly! [Laughter.]
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Chairperson, if this was not taking place in this House, I would say that what the hon member is saying is balderdash! [Laughter.] Dr S E M PHEKO: I thank you, Minister. We don’t want to come here and talk politics. [Interjections.]
The land question has been betrayed by the ANC in this country!
Yiyo le nto nihlala ematyotyombeni. Ngaba bantu abanithengisileyo. Namhlanje bathengisa impahla yombuso. Nina aninamali yokuyithenga. Baza kuniqhatha. Ze nivotele i-PAC. [Uwelewele.] La madoda anithengisile, ewonke. Yiyo le nto benibizele ukuza kunixokisa apha. [Uwelewele.] Izwe lethu! (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[That is why you live in shacks. These people have betrayed you; they have sold you out. They are even selling national property. You, as ordinary people, do not have money to buy it. They are going to cheat you. Please vote for the PAC. [Interjections.] These gentlemen have betrayed you. Now they have called you here to lie to you. [Interjections.] Our land!] The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Pheko, please return to the podium.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Ndandinaye nalowo. [Uwelewele.] Andifun’ ukubhoxwa mna. [I was with that one too. [Interjections.] I do not want to be messed up.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon Pheko, your speaking time has expired.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Yes, I thank you.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I was allowing you to respond to the point of order. Instead, you raised another topic.
Dr S E M PHEKO: What is the point of order?
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Your time has expired, you may now leave the podium.
Dr S E M PHEKO: I thank you very much, but they should not betray people here and tell lies, just because of their so-called majority. We shall follow the light! We shall follow the sun, not big crowds. We don’t follow the crowds here, we follow the light. Izwe lethu! [Our land!] Long live Hintsa! [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! Hon members, can we have order in the House? Please take your seats. [Interjections.] Order, hon members! [Interjections.] I will wait until we have silence in the House.
Hon member Pheko, you did not listen to the Chair. Your speaking time had expired. I allowed you to respond to the point of order that was raised, but you continued to abuse the opportunity that I had given you. We would like you to apologise to the House for that behaviour.
Dr S E M PHEKO: There was a lot of noise, Mr Chairman. I did not hear what you were telling me to do, so the blame should really go to those who, when we are debating here, are holding their own conferences over there.
I will apologise to the Chair, but the Chair must be aware of the cause of my not having heard its instruction.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I will accept your apology, hon member, but please, hon members, let us not disregard the rulings of the Chair, especially on the issue of the time that has been allocated to the various parties.
The next speaker is the hon Rajbally. Are you rising on a point of order?
Mr M R SIKAKANE: Yes, Chair. I am very bothered, because this should be an unconditional apology. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Sikakane, I have accepted the apology. Are you asking the Chair not to accept the apology?
Mr M R SIKAKANE: Chair, to a certain extent.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: No, we cannot do that. Please continue, hon Rajbally.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Thank you, Chairperson. The term is certainly making a fast exit and the election bustle for organisations has arrived. As to when the elections will be held is a question on which we are certainly all kept waiting. It would be of great assistance if this decision were to be made soon, in order to enable all parties to do their constituency work as scheduled.
In the light of the amending Bill, no objection is made to limiting the application of the Electoral Act of 1998 in respect of municipal elections. Furthermore, the revision of provisions on voter registration, voters’ roll, voting districts, voting stations and voting hours is supported in the light of such revisions benefiting the voting process by making it effective and efficient within our constitutional parameters.
The repeal of absolute provisions is supported. Further, the MF does not pardon criminals for their injustices in this country, but respects the fact that they belong to this country and have entitlements such as voting. Taking this into consideration, provisions made for awaiting-trial prisoners to vote is supported.
Provisions made for dispute management and assistance to disabled persons is supported, as this is a constitutional duty. Further, it is felt that the alterations, deletions, additions and clarification are necessary in determining authority and duty boundaries.
Lastly, the registration of political parties is crucial for our democracy, and the MF is pleased that provision is made for this. The MF supports the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs S A SEATON: Chair, on a point of order: The last speaker was able to be heard because she speaks loudly, but there is a tremendous amount of noise in here. The Minister has already made an appeal about this. Could you please appeal to the members to listen to this debate. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I must ask the Whips to assist us with keeping order in the House because calls from the Chair have not been responded to favourably.
Mr C AUCAMP: Hon Chairperson, it is quite ironic that yesterday we saw President Mbeki making a plea on television that Afro-Americans be regarded as part of Africa and not be left in the cold just because they live in another country. [Interjections.]
But, hon member, the same sentiments are shockingly lacking when it comes to South African citizens. Maybe they look a little different from the ones the President was talking about, but they are bona fide South African citizens born and bred, not in America or the Caribbean, but in South Africa. They are abroad only temporarily, but have been shamefully disenfranchised.
Dis ‘n skande. Dis dubbele standaarde. In 1994 kon Suid-Afrikaners in die buiteland stem, net oor een rede: baie ANC-ondersteuners was toe nog in exile. Toe almal terug is in die kraal, word die hek eensydig toegemaak. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[This is a shame. These are double standards. In 1994 South Africans could vote abroad, for one reason only: many ANC supporters were still in exile at the time. When every one was back in the kraal, the gate was closed unilaterally.]
South Africans are shamefully disenfranchised. [Interjections.]
Intussen belas minister Trevor Manuel hulle op inkomste wat hulle in die buiteland verdien. Daar kan net een rede daarvoor wees: die ANC het ``benoude boude’’; hulle is bang dat ‘n halfmiljoen kiesers oorsee hulle hul plek in die Regering sal kos. [Tussenwerpsels.] Tyd en geld word as redes aangegee. Die OVK het gesê die geld is reg daarvoor. Die agb Chauke het in reaksie op besware gesê daar is 300 000 ID-boekies wat nog moet afgehaal word.
Die NA doen in die lig van hierdie verklaring ‘n dringende oproep op die Regering om dan die verkiesing uit te stel. Die ANC het ‘n obsessie om die verkiesing te laat saamval met die 10-jaar babelaas in April. Dit is ‘n deursigtige poging om die feesvierings, die sukseseuforie wat daardeur geskep word en die R1,3 miljard wat daarvoor begroot word te misbruik om die regerende party in die verkiesing te bevoordeel.
Volgens die Grondwet kan ons tot in September verkiesing hou. Stel dit uit. Dis die regte ding om te doen en dit gee ons mense hier en in die buiteland die kans om hulle demokratiese reg uit te oefen. Die NA sal teen hierdie wetsontwerp stem, en ons doen dit met groot graagte. Ek dank u. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[In the meantime Minister Trevor Manuel taxes them on income earned by them abroad. There can be only one reason for this: The ANC are panicking; they are afraid that half a million voters abroad are going to cost them their place in the Government. [Interjections.] Time and money are being given as reasons. The IEC has said that there is enough money. The hon Chauke said, reacting to objections, that there are 300 000 ID books that still have to be collected.
In view of this statement the NA is making an urgent appeal to the Government to postpone the election. The ANC is obsessed with making the election coincide with the 10-year hangover in April. It is a transparent attempt to abuse the festivities, the euphoria of success created by it and the R1,3 billion budgeted for it to benefit the ruling party in the election.
According to the Constitution we can hold an election until September. Postpone it. That is the right thing to do and would give our people here and abroad the chance to exercise their democratic right. The NA will vote against this legislation, and we shall do so with pleasure. I thank you. [Interjections.]]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! I now call the hon P M Mathebe. [Applause.] [Interjections.]
Mr P M MATHEBE: Shut up, Sakkie. Thank you, Chairperson, hon Minister and other Ministers in the House. Chairperson, there has been a lot of noise about overseas voters in this House. I think I must put the record straight. They are our fellow South Africans. We love them, we appreciate their patriotism and we think that wherever they are they are doing us proud. They are representing us, and are our people. I think that most of them would be happy to see the meagre resources that we have in this country being channelled where they are most needed.
In the last election the IEC spent many millions of rands on overseas voters. But, as the chairperson has already indicated, only a few turned up. So how can you spend these millions on people who do not even respond? [Interjections.] Most of these people who are overseas … [Interjections.] Shut up.
I think that most of these people who are overseas would be happier to see all these resources being spent inside the country, because people in the rural areas in the last elections couldn’t go to the voting stations as they were far apart. [Applause.] So if we spend these resources inside the country to increase the number of these voting stations and districts, people will be able to vote. Most of the people who are overseas would be happy to see that happen. [Interjections.] Shut up.
Now, the hon Pretorius, to come here and create this wrong impression about this Bill is really disgusting, Sakkie.
An HON MEMBER: ``The hon’’ Sakkie.
Mr P M MATHEBE: He is `` the hon’’, of course. But this man has totally lost his soul - the hon Sakkie. He has totally lost his soul. I’m not surprised to hear him say all this nonsense. [Interjections.] That is the reason why he has defected to the DA, a party which refuses to cross the threshold into the new South Africa, a party that can only be described as the dumping ground of all the reactionary and insane elements of our society. [Laughter.] [Applause.] [Interjections.] You shut up! You are stupid. That’s why you went bald at such an early age. [Laughter.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES. Order! Hon member, can you withdraw that remark please? Hon Mathebe, can you withdraw that remark please?
Mr P M MATHEBE: I withdraw, Comrade Chairperson. [Interjections.]
Mr M J ELLIS: Are you sure you withdraw it? That’s the silliest thing you have ever said. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Please continue, hon member.
Mr P M MATHEBE: Now, Chairperson, coming to the hon Dr Mulder. Really, after listening to what he was saying here, one is obliged to think that he can only be a doctor of animals, because he doesn’t have the interests of the people at heart. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] Your party applies subjective principles in all its proposals and decisions. It always applies principles which are to the benefit of the minority and to the detriment of the whole of South Africa. So, I think, you are still pursuing the old ideas of your late father, Dr Connie Mulder, who denied the majority of people who were in this country the right to vote.
I now come to Mr Swart, the hon poor Mr Swart. I think that I mustn’t waste much of my time on you, because you don’t warrant such serious consideration. [Interjections.] You attended one meeting of our portfolio committee. When we deliberated on this Bill you were nowhere to be found, but you come here and waste our time and speak all this nonsense. I think you must stop portraying yourself as a Christian party, because you are in reality an unholy party. [Laughter.] It’s inclemency when the majority of these people are living in misery.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon member!
Mr K M ANDREW: Mr Chairman, you can’t have a member of Parliament standing up and referring to a party as an unholy party. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] Surely that is unparliamentary? This man is overstepping all decent bounds in Parliament.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Mathebe, can you rise? You have on several occasions used the words ``shut up’’ and other very, very crude language. Can you please contain yourself.
Mr P M MATHEBE: [Inaudible.] … bald-headed stupid …
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon member! Hon Mathebe, please! We are asking you to contain yourself.
Mr P M MATHEBE: I will, Chairperson, but you must also ask the hon bald- headed man to keep quiet. [Laughter.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Mulder?
Dr C P MULDER: I rise on a point of order, Chairperson. The remarks made by this hon member are an absolute disgrace to this House and an absolute disgrace to our democracy. I would like you to ask him to leave the podium. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Mathebe, can you take this seriously? Can you withdraw that remark?
Mr P M MATHEBE: I withdraw, Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I have made a ruling, Mr Andrew. We want to continue with the debate. I’ve ruled, and the member has withdrawn.
Mr K M ANDREW: Which remark, Chair?
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: The last remark about the ACDP.
Mr K M ANDREW: There is a further remark, Chair. Earlier in the hon member’s speech, he made a derogatory reference to the hon Mr Ellis. When you asked him to please contain himself just a minute or so ago, he then proceeded to say, ``If you tell that bald-headed man to behave himself’’. [Interjections]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon members!
Mr K M ANDREW: Chair, the fact that in the very same speech about five minutes ago you asked the hon member and obliged him to withdraw exactly the same remark and that he now uses exactly the same terminology is, I believe, contempt of the Chair and a withdrawal in itself is not an adequate admonition.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon Mathebe, I am going to warn you for the last time about the remarks that you are making. Mr P M MATHEBE: Thank you, Chair, but I think you will give me much more time because they have wasted much of my time. I now come to the hon member Mr Pheko.
Morwarre, o kweša bohloko go tla mo go tlo tlatša lešata leo o bego o le tladitše. Batho ba reng ge moetapele wa party a dira tšona tše? O botša batho go re PAC ke party ya mašata ga se party yeo e nyakago tšwelopele. A ke go botše fa, ke kwele o botša batho gore tšwang ka bontši le ye go boutela PAC, bjale a ke tsebe o ra efeng kage e le tše dintši. Nkebe o hlatholotše gabotse gore PAC ye o bolelago ka yona ke e feng? Bjale, ke rata go dira boipiletšo go batho ba gešo ka moka, gore rena ba ANC le ba bangwe ka mo bao dihlogo tša bona di tšeago gabotse re tlo fetiša molawana. [Nako e fedile.] [Legowa.] (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)
[Mr P M MATHEBE: My brother, it is so disappointing to see you come here and be as rowdy as you were. What do the people say if a leader of a party, does this? You are telling people that the PAC is a rowdy party, it is not a party that wants to progress. Let me tell you something, I heard you telling us that people come out in their multitudes to go and vote for PAC. Now, I do not know which ones you are referring to because there are many. You should have explained clearly which PAC you were talking about. Now, I would like to make an appeal to all my fellow people that we, the ANC, and the others in here who are sober-minded, should put on end to this regulation. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Chairperson, hon members, I would like to thank all who have participated in this debate. I noted all the contributions made and I am mindful that one hopes that the debate on the electoral law will not stop here.
I just want to make minor corrections in relation to the suggestions made by the chairperson of the portfolio committee that it was the opposition parties that concluded that the system should change to enhance accountability. It was the task team that suggested the changes. I want to emphasise that, as the hon Prince Zulu suggested, it is first and foremost the duty of an ID applicant to collect that document from Home Affairs. We do our utmost to help them, especially since our people are poor and do not have money when it comes to transport.
In relation to the point about wasted resources, I hope the threats by Dr Mulder will just be made here in Parliament and that they would not really go to court. Unless we are sure you are going to court, we cannot say that the money that we are going to spend will not be a waste of resources. Of course, when the court case takes place, I will be cited as the person to be pursued.
Much of what has been said by both those who support and those who criticise, may be taken into account during the continued policy formulation in respect of the electoral law. And I trust that the next Parliament of South Africa which will be elected during the elections next year will take a better and wider consideration to the relationship between the people of South Africa and their political representatives. As Cabinet indicated the draft Bill prepared by the electoral task team will be submitted to Parliament after next year’s elections and that will give the opportunity for many of the contributions that were made during the debate to be taken on board.
Instead of dealing with the specific aspects raised during this debate, which should be addressed during future debate I think it is important that we focus on the next elections and express in this House the shared commitment to ensure that next year’s elections are indeed free and fair. For elections to be free and fair one needs to have more than just a lack of incidents or the absence of intimidation.
In my opinion it is essential that the people of South African gain a clear understanding of what elections are indeed all about in a democratic dispensation. In 1994 we provided extensive election training to teach people how to vote. In 1999 we provided no relevant training at all. In 2004 we must make a shared commitment for all in this House to assist the majority of the South African people to understand why they vote. It is essential that our people understand that voting is the moment during which they vote to hold their government accountable and they have this opportunity once in a five-year period. They must realise that voting is a critical activity which must focus their assessment of the issues affecting our country, not just on the basis of loyalty to any of our parties. Voting should not be regarded as an act of allegiance to those who are in power and people should not feel that their summons to this House pays homage to us by voting for us. Voting is the time when the people of South Africa are sovereign and they may hire or fire each one of us and decide who is to rule the country. Until each and every voter feels that he or she has in his or her hands the power to hire and fire anyone in this House, including the President, our democracy will not have achieved its final goal and our people will not be free.
We have passed laws in this House, but democracy is not just about passing the 800 pieces of legislation that we have passed. It is in the practices of government and in the hearts and minds of the people of our country. I wish to conclude with a plea to all in this House, that through our activities we can supplement the insufficient voter education in respect of why people should vote. Only by making people understand that they have the powers to hire and fire, will each one of us then become bound to embrace the culture of service. We will act for what we all have to be, which is nothing more than serving our people, who are our only masters. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the following amendment on the Order Paper, proposed by Mr I J Pretorius, be agreed to:
Amendment of section 33 of Act 73 of 1998
9. Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 1998, is hereby amended by the
substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
(1) The Commission must allow a person to apply for a special
vote if that person cannot vote at a voting station in
the voting district in which the person is registered as
a voter, due to that person's -
(a) physical infirmity or disability, or pregnancy;
(b) absence from the Republic on Government service or
membership of the household of the person so being
absent;
(c) absence from that voting district while serving as
an officer in the election concerned;
(d) being on duty as a member of the security services
in connection with the election; or
(e) temporary absence from the Republic, where he or she
ordinarily resides, for one of the following
purposes, but in this case, only in an election for
the National Assembly:
(i) study at a tertiary educational institution;
(ii) to perform activities flowing from his or her
employment in the Republic;
(iii) to pursue business activities or employment
opportunities.
Division demanded. The House divided:
AYES - 61: Andrew, K M; Bakker, D M; Bell, B G; Blanché, J P I; Borman, G M; Bruce, N S; Buthelezi, M G; Camerer, S M; Da Camara, M L; Dhlamini, B W; Dudley, C; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Ferreira, E T; Geldenhuys, B L; Gore, V C; Green, L M; Grobler, G A J; Hlengwa, W M; Jankielsohn, R; Johnson, C B; Koornhof, N J van R; Le Roux, J W; Leon, A J; Lowe, C M; Lucas, E J; Mars, I; Mbuyazi, L R; Mdlalose, M M; Middleton, N S; Moorcroft, E K; Mpontshane, A M; Mulder, C P; Ngiba, B C; Ntuli, R S; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Pillay, S; Pretorius, I J; Redcliffe, C R; Roopnarain, U; Seaton, S A; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Shabalala, T; Simmons, S; Skosana, M B; Smuts, M; Steele, M H; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Theron, J L; Van Deventer, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Vezi, T E; Vos, S C; Waters, M; Woods, G G; Xulu, M; Zulu, N E.
NOES - 207: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Bogopane- Zulu, H I; Booi, M S; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Cassim, M F; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Khota, F I; Cindi, N V; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Daniels, N; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Du Toit, D C; Duma, N M; Dyani, M M Z; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Gerber, P A; Gogotya, N J; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hendrickse, P A C; Holomisa, S P; Jeebodh, T; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kati, J Z; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekota, M G P; Lishivha, T E; Lockey, D; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Mabuyakhulu, V D; Magubane, N E; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlawe, N; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makanda, W G; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Manuel, T A; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlanyane, H F; Matsepe-Casaburri, I F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, M A; Mbadi, L M; Mbombo, N D; Mdladlana, M M S; Mentor, M P; Meruti, V; Mfundisi, I S; Mkono, D G; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mnguni, B A; Mnumzana, S K; Moatshe, M S; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Moloi, J; Moloto, K A; 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; Mthethwa, E N; Mtsweni, N S; Mudau, N W; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngubeni, J M; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nobunga, B J; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Nqodi, S B; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, J T; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa- Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Phadagi, M G; Phohlela, S; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ratsoma, M M; Reid, L R R; Ripinga, S S; Robertsen, M O; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E (Cassim); Schneeman, G D; Seeco, M A; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Sibande, M P; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, P; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Tarr, M A; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van Wyk, A; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Xingwana, L M T; Zita, L; Zondo, R P.
Question not agreed to.
Amendment accordingly negatived.
Question put: That the following amendment on the Order Paper, proposed by Dr C P Mulder, be agreed to:
Amendment of section 33 of Act 73 of 1998 9. Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 1998, is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:
(1) The Commission must allow a person to apply for a special
vote if that person cannot vote at a voting station in
the voting district in which the person is registered as
a voter, due to that person's -
(a) physical infirmity or disability, or pregnancy;
(b) absence from the Republic on Government service or
membership of the household of the person so being
absent;
(c) absence from that voting district while serving as
an officer in the election concerned;
(d) being on duty as a member of the security services
in connection with the election; or
(e) temporary absence from the Republic, where he or she
ordinarily resides, but in this case, only in an
election for the National Assembly.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 66: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Bakker, D M; Bell, B G; Blanché, J P I; Borman, G M; Bruce, N S; Buthelezi, M G; Camerer, S M; Clelland- Stokes, N J; Da Camara, M L; Dhlamini, B W; Dudley, C; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Ferreira, E T; Geldenhuys, B L; Gore, V C; Green, L M; Grobler, G A J; Hlengwa, W M; Jankielsohn, R; Johnson, C B; Koornhof, N J van R; Le Roux, J W; Leon, A J; Lowe, C M; Lucas, E J; Mars, I; Mbuyazi, L R; Mdlalose, M M; Mfundisi, I S; Middleton, N S; Moorcroft, E K; Mpontshane, A M; Mulder, C P; Ngiba, B C; Ntuli, R S; Olckers, M E; Opperman, S E; Pillay, S; Pretorius, I J; Redcliffe, C R; Roopnarain, U; Seaton, S A; Seeco, M A; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Shabalala, T; Sibiya, M S M; Simmons, S; Skosana, M B; Smuts, M; Steele, M H; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Theron, J L; Van Deventer, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Vezi, T E; Vos, S C; Waters, M; Woods, G G; Xulu, M; Zulu, N E.
NOES - 205: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Bogopane- Zulu, H I; Booi, M S; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Cassim, M F; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan-Khota, F I; Cindi, N V; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Daniels, N; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Du Toit, D C; Duma, N M; Dyani, M M Z; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Fihla, N B; Gerber, P A; Gogotya, N J; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hendrickse, P A C; Holomisa, S P; Jeebodh, T; Joemat, R R; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kati, J Z; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekota, M G P; Lishivha, T E; Lockey, D; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Mabuyakhulu, V D; Magubane, N E; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlawe, N; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makanda, W G; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Manuel, T A; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlanyane, H F; Matsepe-Casaburri, I F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, M A; Mbadi, L M; Mbombo, N D; Mdladlana, M M S; Mentor, M P; Meruti, V; Mkono, D G; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mnguni, B A; Mnumzana, S K; Moatshe, M S; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Moloi, J; Moloto, K A; 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; Mthethwa, E N; Mtsweni, N S; Mudau, N W; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngubeni, J M; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nobunga, B J; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Nqodi, S B; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, J T; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Phadagi, M G; Phohlela, S; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ratsoma, M M; Reid, L R R; Ripinga, S S; Robertsen, M O; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E (Cassim); Schneeman, G D; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Sibande, M P; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, P; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Tarr, M A; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van Wyk, A; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Xingwana, L M T; Zita, L; Zondo, R P. Question not agreed to.
Amendment accordingly negatived.
Question put: That the following amendment on the Order Paper, proposed by Mr S Pillay, be agreed to:
Amendment of section 33 of Act 73 of 1998
-
Section 33 of the Electoral Act, 1998, is hereby amended by the addition at the end of subsection (1) of the following paragraph:
(e) absence from the Republic, for a period not exceeding five years and still holding a valid South African passport: Provided that such person may only vote for an election for the National Assembly.
Amendment negatived (New National Party, Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom Party, African Christian Democratic Party, Freedom Front, National Action and Federal Alliance dissenting). The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I rise on a point of order: The intention is to seek some clarity. The other parties have stood up to say that they want their objections noted. What are they objecting to because we are the ones that object to a particular amendment? [Applause.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: It would appear that they are objecting to the rejection of the amendments.
Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Chairperson, should I call for a division? [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: In respect of the member asking for a division, he should also be conscious of the fact that he is not allowed to do so as he is not the sponsor of the particular amendment. [Laughter.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: The hon member is in a position to call for a division, however he has to secure a sufficient number to do so. Are you calling for a division? Mr J P I BLANCHÉ: Chairperson, I am objecting to the amendment.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 232: Abrahams, T; Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Arendse, J D; Asmal, A K; Bakker, D M; Baloyi, M R; Baloyi, S F; Benjamin, J; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Booi, M S; Buthelezi, M G; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Cassim, M F; Chauke, H P; Chiba, L; Chikane, M M; Chohan- Khota, F I; Cindi, N V; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Daniels, N; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Dhlamini, B W; Diale, L N; Didiza, A T; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Du Toit, D C; Duma, N M; Dyani, M M Z; Fankomo, F C; Fazzie, M H; Ferreira, E T; Fihla, N B; Geldenhuys, B L; Gerber, P A; Gogotya, N J; Gomomo, P J; Goniwe, M T; Goosen, A D; Gumede, D M; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlengwa, W M; Holomisa, S P; Jeebodh, T; Joemat, R R; Johnson, C B; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kati, J Z; Kgauwe, Q J; Kgwele, L M; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kotwal, Z; Lamani, N E; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekota, M G P; Lishivha, T E; Lockey, D; Louw, S K; Lucas, E J; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Lyle, A G; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Mabuyakhulu, V D; Magubane, N E; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlawe, N; Mahomed, F; Maimane, D S; Maine, M S; Makanda, W G; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleke-Hlaneki, C J; Manuel, T A; Mars, I; Martins, B A D; Masala, M M; Maserumule, F T; Masithela, N H; Masutha, M T; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlanyane, H F; Matsepe-Casaburri, I F; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, M A; Mbadi, L M; Mbombo, N D; Mbuyazi, L R; Mdladlana, M M S; Mdlalose, M M; Mentor, M P; Meruti, V; Middleton, N S; Mkono, D G; Mlangeni, A; Mnandi, P N; Mnguni, B A; Mnumzana, S K; Moatshe, M S; Modise, T R; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mohamed, I J; Mohlala, R J B; Mokoena, A D; Molebatsi, M A; Moloi, J; Moloto, K A; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Moropa, R M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Moss, M I; Mothoagae, P K; Mpaka, H M; Mpontshane, A M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtsweni, N S; Mudau, N W; Mzondeki, M J G; Nair, B; Nash, J H; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngiba, B C; Ngubeni, J M; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njobe, M A A; Nobunga, B J; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Nqodi, S B; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, J T; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olckers, M E; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Phadagi, M G; Phohlela, S; Pieterse, R D; Pillay, S; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Rasmeni, S M; Ratsoma, M M; Reid, L R R; Rhoda, R T; Ripinga, S S; Robertsen, M O; Roopnarain, U; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E (Cassim); Schneeman, G D; Seaton, S A; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; September, R K; Shabalala, T; Sibande, M P; Sigcawu, A N; Sigwela, E M; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; 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; Tarr, M A; Thabethe, E; Tinto, B; Tolo, L J; Tsheole, N M; Tshivhase, T J; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van Wyk, A; Van Wyk, J F; Van Wyk, N; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Vezi, T E; Vos, S C; Woods, G G; Xingwana, L M T; Xulu, M; Zita, L; Zondo, R P; Zulu, N E.
NOES - 39: Andrew, K M; Aucamp, C; Bell, B G; Blanché, J P I; Borman, G M; Bruce, N S; Camerer, S M; Clelland-Stokes, N J; Da Camara, M L; Dudley, C; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Gore, V C; Green, L M; Grobler, G A J; Jankielsohn, R; Koornhof, N J van R; Le Roux, J W; Leon, A J; Lowe, C M; Mfundisi, I S; Moorcroft, E K; Mulder, C P; Ntuli, R S; Opperman, S E; Pretorius, I J; Redcliffe, C R; Seeco, M A; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Smuts, M; Steele, M H; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Theron, J L; Van Deventer, F J; Van Niekerk, A I; Waters, M.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time.
ALTERATION OF SEX DESCRIPTION AND SEX STATUS BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Hon Chairperson and hon members, the Constitution of the Republic of SA ushered in a new dispensation in the constitutional history of this country. Of utmost significance is the provision that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic, and that any law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and obligations imposed by it, must in fact, be fulfilled.
The Department of Home Affairs, in its attempts to realign legislation under its administration with the Constitution, has identified the Alteration of Sex Description and Sex Status Bill as one of those pieces of new legislation to be introduced in line with the Bill of Rights and the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom which are enshrined in our Constitution.
This follows the recommendations of the South African Law Commission, which were submitted to the then Minister of Justice, Dr A M Omar, a member of Parliament. The main objective of this Bill is to make provision for any person who has undergone a sex change operation, either by surgery and/or medical treatment, so that such person has the sex organs of the opposite sex to his or her biological sex. [Laughter.] This person may apply to the Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs for the alteration of his or her sex description in the national population register.
The Bill provides that an application for the alteration of the person’s sex description shall be accompanied by the birth certificate of the applicant, reports from the medical practitioners who performed any of the processes resulting in the sex change, and a report by an independent medical practitioner who did not take part in the processes but has performed an examination of the sex appearance of the person concerned.
The Bill further provides that the Director-General of Home Affairs shall furnish written reasons for any refusal to register such an applicant. The applicant can approach the magistrate’s court in the district - Chairperson, I thought this was a matter of interest to all of us, whether male or female - in which he or she resides for an order authorising the change of his or her sex description. The application to the magistrate’s court shall be accompanied by all documents submitted to the Director- General of Home Affairs, together with the reasons for refusals to alter the sex description.
Upon registration of the altered sex description, the person concerned shall be legally deemed for all purposes - listen to this - to be the person of the new sex description. The Bill also seeks to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992, as amended, by the insertion of a new section after section 24 thereof to provide for the Director-General of Home Affairs to order that the sex description of a person be altered in the birth register and an amended birth certificate be issued accordingly.
In other words, the Bill introduces the following provisions: It provides for the procedures and requirements which an applicant, who has undergone a sex change operation or treatment, and/or evolvement through natural development resulting in sex change, must follow to enable the Director- General of Home Affairs to alter his or her sex description in the National Population Register. It further provides for the manner in which refusals by the director-general must be made, and the processes to be followed by the applicant to appear before the magistrate, either in person or assisted by a legal practitioner.
It provides for the acknowledgement of the alteration of sex appearance, where the application to alter the sex description in terms of clause 1 has been granted, either by the director-general or an order issued by the magistrate. This clause makes provision that the person concerned, shall, from the date of the recording of the national population register, be legally deemed for all purposes - listen to this to be the person of the sex description so recorded.
It provides that the rights and obligations that have been acquired by or accrued to such a person, before the alteration of his or her sex description are not adversely affected by the alteration. The Bill seeks to amend Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992 as amended by the insertion of a new clause, which allows the Director-General of Home Affairs to order the alteration of the sex description of a person in the national population register and issue an amended birth certificate accordingly. Furthermore, it provides for the short title of the Bill being the Alteration of Sex Description and Sex Status Bill. So it is exciting that it gives each one of us a chance to cross over. [Laughter.] I urge this House to accept the Alteration of Sex Description and Sex Status Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms A VAN WYK: Hon Chairperson, hon Ministers, members of the House, the Bill before the House follows a report to the then Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, Minister Omar, into the legal consequences of sexual realignment and related matters.
The Law Commission’s report made certain recommendations regarding legislation providing for the application to the Director-General of Home Affairs for the alteration of a person’s sex description in the national population register. The Bill deals with the actual application for the alteration of the sex description to the director-general. It sets out the requirements for such application, the manner in which the director-general has to deal with a refusal to register, and the steps that the applicant may take if the application was unsuccessful.
It further obliges the director-general to register the altered sex description in terms of the amendment to the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992, and amends the Births and Deaths Registration Act by inserting a section dealing with the issuing of an amended birth certificate to the person concerned.
The Bill before the House is another example of the fact that South Africa’s Constitution is a living document that impacts on and improves the quality of life of all our people. It also bears testimony to the ANC’s commitment to respecting freedom of choice and promoting equality. The Bill of Rights, as contained in our Constitution, guarantees, amongst other things, the right to privacy, dignity and freedom of choice, and prohibits discrimination based on sex, gender and social orientation.
However, in the absence of this Bill, these basic rights of individuals are ignored and violated. Furthermore, we have the peculiar situation in South Africa that South African laws allow for sex change procedures, but deny people who have undergone a sex reassignment procedure to have their new sex reflected in the births register and on their ID document. The Bill before the House will correct this ambiguous situation.
In dealing with this Bill, the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs received a number of written submissions and held public hearings. The evidence brought before the committee was compelling. It was clear from the numerous personal experiences that were relayed to the portfolio committee that the nonrecognition of their sex status impacted negatively on their lives and the rights that they ought to enjoy by virtue of our Bill of Rights, as enshrined in our Constitution.
I would like to share with the House a few of these submissions from the hearings that we held. One submission said: ``The banks are the worst; they absolutely refuse to change your sex details. I will not have a credit card, because can you imagine that every time you use your card you have to explain your personal life in public?’’
Another said: ``I have considered obtaining a false ID, but why should I be forced to become a criminal? I want to conform and be normal. Home Affairs are branding us and attaching a number to us. It is similar to the past when our identity documents reflected our race groups. Why are we being branded?’’
Other practical implications include the inability to obtain a passport, to open a bank account, continual harassment in respect of the utilisation of public facilities and producing a drivers’ licences. Though it might be true that the amendment of identity documents will not in itself end discrimination against transsexual people, it will, however, remove the last basis on which discrimination can be legally facilitated and legitimated.
During its deliberations, the committee made certain amendments. The most important of these are the following sections. Section 1(2)(b) deals with the documentation that must accompany an application. Where it originally required a report by the surgeon who carried out the procedure, it was decided to broaden this to any surgeon qualified and experienced in the field. The reason for this is a practical one. A practitioner might have relocated and it might be impossible to locate such a practitioner, or he or she may have become unavailable due to death or disability.
The original section 1(3) required the director-general to furnish the applicant with written reasons for refusal, unless the reasons have been made public. It is clear that this would would infringe on a person’s right to privacy and dignity if such reasons are made public. The amendment now obliges the director-general to provide the applicant with written reasons for refusal and removes the scenario of making such reasons public.
The ANC supports, with enthusiasm, the Bill before the House. It was clear to us, however, that the department failed to consult broadly enough, specifically as far as consultation was concerned with interest groups representing those directly affected by the Bill. Because of that, the Bill fails in making adequate provision for intersex persons, whose physical sex is ambiguous and objectively indeterminate from birth.
According to Australian law, an intersex person is a person who, because of a genetic condition, was born with reproductive organs or sex chromosomes that are not exclusively male or female. And, may I say, this is the latest definition in international law. The Bill, as it stands, affords no relief to those whose sex organs are ambiguous and who are unwilling or unable to submit to radical and, indeed, potentially life-threatening genital surgery.
Intersex and transsexual people are different, their needs are different, and the discrimination they face is different. An intersex person is one who was born with reproductive organs that are neither exclusively male nor female, whereas a transgender person identifies as a member of a different sex to the one they were born as. Both of these communities often face discrimination, and it is important that our laws reflect their different needs.
The Bill provides for transsexuals, but fails to address the specific needs of intersex persons. This group now finds itself in a legal limbo, unable to exercise civil rights which are generally taken for granted. It is for this reason that the ANC will recommend to the NCOP to consider an amendment that will address the needs of intersex people.
The department was instructed, during the process of public hearings, to work on these amendments, but failed to do so in time. They should see to it that they are ready for this once the NCOP starts to deliberate on the Bill. An amendment to the Bill should make provision for the intersex person’s nominated gender.
Following the submissions to the committee and legal developments in various parts of the world and specifically the UK and Australia during the past six months, the ANC believes that a possible solution lies in stating explicitly in section 1(1) that these measures apply to any person who is intersex. Intersex people can then further be required, on application for alteration of their sex description, to provide medical reports corroborating that they are indeed intersex.
Furthermore, an intersex person should be required to provide evidence in the form of a report by a psychiatrist, a social worker or other in support of the application. Such a report should confirm and support the application that the applicant has been established, stable and satisfactory, up to the present, for an unbroken period of at least two years in the nominated gender role corresponding to the sex description that is sought.
In conclusion, I would like to share with this House an extract from one submission specifically, that we received. I think it will explain better to us all the difficulties these fellow South Africans have to deal with:
As I grew up the feelings inside of me grew and I felt myself being torn between my love and loyalty to my family and the strange feelings inside of me. I could not talk to anyone. The very mention of the TS word brought out the worst in all those around me. I began to realise that I would never be accepted, and that if I were to continue with my journey to womanhood, that I would lose my family and forever be a social outcast. Then something happened which changed my whole outlook on life. A new South Africa was born and with it came a new hope. To cut a long story short, I overcame my fears and today my family and I are working to resolve our differences. It has not been easy for either of us, but I’m happy to say that we are still a family.
Based on the founding values of our democracy, enshrined in our Constitution are human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedom. The ANC supports the Bill. [Applause.]
Mr I J PRETORIUS: Chairperson, the DA also supports this amending Bill. After listening to submissions to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs, I was reminded of the trauma and difficulties that people experience who have undergone surgical and medical treatment to alter their gender alignment. The procedure for application to alter the sex description of a person is also set out in the Bill.
Owing to an oversight or indifference during the drafting of the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992, no provision was made in the Act to amend the birth register after the sex description of a person had been altered. After the application has been granted an amended birth certificate shall be issued.
This amendment also allows people who have undergone gender realignment operations to once again take their full place in society. They will now be able to get identity documents which reflect their new gender and identity, which will enable them to register to vote or access social benefits such as pensions, just like every other South African citizen.
The portfolio committee also agreed to investigate the whole issue further at a later stage to address any remaining anomalies. The DA supports the Bill because it brings the Births and Deaths Registration Act in line with the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Thank you.
Ms I MARS: Deputy Chairperson, hon Minister and hon members, today we are dealing with the Alteration of Sex Description and Sex Status Bill, and therefore it is important that we are very clear about why this Bill is necessary.
Under the previous dispensation, that is Act 81 of 1963, a specific group of people were allowed by law to apply for the alteration of sex description in the birth register. The Act referred specifically to people who had undergone a sex reassignment.
The Act did, of course, have certain requirements. It was necessary to obtain a recommendation from the secretary of health to the secretary of the interior to enable the latter, if deemed necessary, to call for medical reports and institute investigation on the applicant’s sex reassignment. It was very interesting and touching to hear evidence from a woman who had successfully applied for, and been granted, alteration of her sex description in terms of this legislation. The year 1992 is significant as the then government repealed the Act, and currently, people who have undergone sex reassignment treatment are not able to have their birth certificate changed, hence this new piece of legislation.
The Bill before us remedies this situation by providing for the alteration of sex description of certain individuals under certain circumstances and amending the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the physical requirements for the application to the Director-General of Home Affairs. Clause 3 inserts section 27A into the Births and Deaths Registration Act, which is a consequential amendment and allows the director-general to alter the sex description on the birth register.
We feel that in many ways this Bill merely reverts to the situation before the 1992 provision, which rescinded rights previously enjoyed by people who had successfully undergone sex reassignment treatment. However, during the public hearing it became evident that this particular Bill only deals with a very specific group of people - much concern was expressed that no provision was made for transsexual and transgender people - and affords no relief for people who are unwilling to undergo surgery or medical treatment.
We would ask the committee and the department to take cognisance of these submissions made to the portfolio committee in order to investigate if and how these submissions can form a basis for dialogue and possible relief. The IFP supports the Bill. Thank you.
Mr S PILLAY: Chairperson, South Africa is in a state of transition, and we all know that. However, some conveniently choose to ignore that fact. Such people further try to resist all forms of change, and that resistance is based on their own inherent and selfish prejudice and usual financial interests. It’s a common occurrence to find that those who resist change cloak their selfish interests in some sort of guise and appoint themselves as God’s representatives here on earth. We clearly saw that during the apartheid era.
We have here before the House a Bill that also seeks to bring about a fundamental change in the lives of certain people. Could there be any moral, ethical or spiritual reasons for not supporting this Bill? We believe that it is an individual matter and those who seek to use this piece of legislation should be able to exercise their constitutional rights and do so without being dictated to by any other person or organisation.
This Bill seeks to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992. Its intention is quite clearly that those persons who choose to change their gender are allowed to do so in terms of the provisions in this Bill. During the public hearings we heard from various people about the impact the absence of the provisions in this Bill had on their lives. We therefore believe it is indeed a timely Bill and it is designed to address specific issues that exist. However, some submissions indicated that the provisions in the Bill were totally inadequate in many respects.
We hope and trust that the Department of Home Affairs will implement these provisions to make and create a better life for all those who are affected. We need to bear in mind that the process that leads to one changing one’s gender is very emotional.
We also urge the Department of Home Affairs and any other state authority which might be involved in implementing this legislation to do so with proper regard to the sensitivities involved, for example privacy when dealing with an applicant and the confidentiality of the whole process. The Bill is very specific on that score wherein it stipulates that the applicant shall appear before the magistrate in chambers, at a time and date specified by the magistrate. The fact that the director-general is also obliged to provide written reasons for any refusal of an application is essential, as it provides a much-needed safeguard against prejudice of any kind.
Some people who are intersexed reported that this Bill does not in any way meet with their specific needs. That is a matter that needs to be addressed to provide clarity on the description and status of such persons. We need to remember that anyone who embarks on this process is confronted with issues and prejudices that might be totally unbelievable. Therefore we conclude that no person would embark on this process lightly and without properly applying their minds as to what lies ahead of them. The New NP will therefore support this Bill.
Mr S N SWART: Chairman and hon members, the ACDP, together with the NA, will oppose this legislation, notwithstanding constitutional imperatives or the Law Commission’s report.
Whilst we appreciate that the present South African law allows for sex change surgery, we believe that the approach adopted by the English cases and used in South African courts should be followed. The central question in these cases was whether it was possible for a person to change their sex as defined for the purposes of marriage.
In deciding that it was not, the South African court applied the so-called Ormond Test from the English case of Corbett vs Corbett. This test applied a biological and genetic definition of sex. It considered the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests, and if all three of these were congruent, this would determine the person’s sex for the purposes of marriage. In other words, a person’s sex for legal purposes in terms of these decisions was found to be a wholly biological question and is fixed at birth. This accordingly does not change by adding or lopping off body parts.
This approach affirms our viewpoint that we are fearfully and wonderfully created by a loving God, and that surgical or medical intervention does not change our sex.
We also have an objection to the inclusion of the phrase ``evolvement through natural development resulting in a sex change’’. We reject the unscientific basis of Darwinism and the evolution theory, and fail to see the need for the inclusion of this phrase when no evidence exists of such occurrences in South Africa. This is another example of the impact of secular humanism on our legislative process - secular humanism being undergirded by concepts of atheism and evolution.
The ACDP will accordingly not support this Bill.
Miss S RAJBALLY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The MF strongly supports the human rights stipulated in our Bill of Rights in our national Constitution of 1996. It is felt that provision is made for individual rights over all parts of ourselves.
In view of the alteration of sex description and sex status, the MF feels that if alteration is made to your sex it is important that Home Affairs notes this once your sex has been altered. There is no sense in being noted as something you are not. In light of this the MF finds this Bill appropriate and necessary. Furthermore, the alteration of one’s sex should be an individual decision. The MF supports the Alteration of Sex Description and Sex Status Bill. Thank you.
Mr W M SKHOSANA: Madam Speaker, members, Minister, lives had to be lived at the beginning of things. It is life at an early stage and it should be developed because it is natural. When it ends it should end because it is natural.
At this point in time, as people of South Africa, we need to see life as life and we need to see ourselves as human beings, not as males or females. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa says it all. Circumstances surrounding the alteration, sex description and sex status affect us all.
We should acknowledge that the research on this subject is sporadic. For many reasons, some partially homophobic, the only proper co-ordination and extensive research was done in the process of compiling the diagnostic and statistical manual of the American Psychiatric Association. The reasons for that are obvious.
During fetal development, after conception, the central nervous system is the first to develop. During this stage the concentration of gonadotrophins, which are hormones which determine whether the fetus is going to be male or female, are very crucial. As a result, the developing stage is a very important stage in human nature. It is possible to have a developing central nervous system subjected to an appreciable concentration of testosterone which is found in male organs or oestrogens which are female. The shifting of this concentration during sex differentiation can cause a misunderstanding as to whether you are on the left or right.
An appreciable concentration of testosterone will be responsible for a male fetus and that of oestrogen will result in a female fetus. Most importantly, hormones are very independent regarding their concentration during the development of the central nervous system.
The result of this sexual miscalculation is a minority in our society which is equally entitled to enjoy the legal protection of our democracy. We do not claim to have all the medical facts on the subject, nor do we have scientific research at all. All we are saying is that we are moving from the premise that our Constitution, in Chapter 2, protects them.
South Africa remained apart from the winds of change that swept most of the continent in the early 60s. Protected by the ring of colonial buffer states, Pretoria concentrated its regional policy and strengthened its economic and military ties with these states. That time ended in 1994, on 27 April, when all of us were regarded as human beings, black and white.
At this point in time I don’t think that we should see ourselves as either on the left or right. This is very important because whatever happens does not only work in the mind of an individual, it works in the minds of the particular parents of that child. It works in the minds of the friends of that particular child. It also works in an individual in society.
It is also important for us to ensure, as we work in society, that we take note of the views and feelings of the minority. We can only understand a written statement or spoken statement because we know what is going on. If we do not understand or know what is going on, we are likely to systematically misunderstand. This is the basis on which most comics and films operate. Someone may say some of the things while not understanding what is actually happening beyond their minds.
It is important at this point in time, as a new democracy, that we should see ourselves as people of this country who have all the rights regarding whatever our minds and feelings want us to do in accordance with the Constitution of the country. We should also try to align ourselves with those feelings of the minority.
It is very unfortunate that the only parties that do not attend the portfolio committee meetings of Home Affairs are the ones who are opposed to this Bill today. They only oppose this Bill because they don’t understand or know, and they did not hear what it is that those people who presented in the public hearings had to say.
I think it is also important at this point in time to note that, as a society, we don’t know exactly what is going to happen to us tomorrow. As we are seated here, men and women, all of us, we do have other hormones. As I stand here, I do have hormones of a female but what is most important to me is that I have more male hormones. As a result, my characteristics are determined by most of the hormones that are in me. If you are a woman, you do have male hormones but what is important is that your characteristics and development result from the majority of hormones that you have as a female. They are the ones which determine under which sex category you will fall.
We should not fool ourselves and say we are what we are because we wanted to become what we are. On that note, I thank you very much. [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Hon Madam Speaker and hon members, I would like to thank all hon members who have participated in this debate.
I would like to just correct Madam Van Wyk’s swipe at my department when she talked about failure. I don’t know what failure she was talking about. I would like to say to her, with due respect, that I am the Minister of President T M Mbeki - who is the president of the ANC. He should see me as such. It is true, of course, that our parties have their own identity, but he can be sure that I have joint and several responsibilities as a member of Cabinet.
Also, my department cannot be blamed in this case because the facts of the matter are that this Bill comes from the SA Law Commission. It actually caters for a specific class of people. The department could not, therefore, change it as it willed, because it came from the commission and we had to implement it, as I said in my remarks, in line with the Constitution.
The submissions from certain individuals apparently seemed to confuse some members who wanted to have the Bill changed beyond recognition from that which was approved by Cabinet in the first place. Obviously, this was not possible. If there is a need for another piece of legislation, this should be investigated and drafted later. This is what legislative and legal procedures, in fact, require one to do. One doesn’t just chop and change draft legislation as one gets requests from certain individuals who want such requests to be included in the Bill while that was not the intention of the Bill in the first place.
I thank the hon member, Mr Skhosana, for explaining that some of our colleagues who have expressed very strong reservations about the Bill are people who, in fact, don’t attend portfolio committee meetings of Home Affairs, because all the chopping and changing of legislation from the executive takes place in the portfolio committees. It’s really not the way to try to do it here when the matter is before the legislature while one had all the opportunity to do so when the matter was before the portfolio committee. The basic concept or essence of any legislation may not be changed at the whim of any person, without having to take it back to Cabinet.
With those few words, I would like to thank my hon colleagues for their comments and for their support of the Bill. Thanks very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (African Christian Democratic Party and National Action dissenting).
FINANCIAL AND FISCAL COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill as amended by National Council of Provinces)
There was no debate.
Bill agreed to.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, before I adjourn the House, I wish you well. You have arduous weeks ahead of you with a brief respite when you return here in the middle of October. But I would urge you not only to consider your party’s supporters or potential voters, but to consider the good of our society; which means we need a very large number of registrations.
So, please, let us do our democratic duty as well as our parties’ responsibilities and make sure that we register every unregistered potential voter. Since all of you know that you are going to get a majority, or at least you assure me that you are going to, this is also in your interests.
Thank you all, very much. Have a good recess.
The MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker, can you allow me to say ``Amen’’! to what you have just said. [Laughter.]
The SPEAKER: That is fully in order, Minister.
The House adjourned at 12:59. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS: National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- Bills passed by Houses - to be submitted to President for assent:
(1) Bill passed by National Assembly on 26 September 2003:
(i) Financial and Fiscal Commission Amendment Bill [B 21D -
2003] (National Assembly - sec 76).
- Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159:
(1) Telecommunications Amendment Bill, 2003, submitted by the
Minister of Communications on 23 September 2003. Referred to the
Portfolio Committee on Communications and the Select Committee on
Labour and Public Enterprises.
TABLINGS: National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology:
Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Arts and Culture
for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-General of the
Financial Statements of Vote 34 - Department of Arts and Culture for
2002-2003 [RP 157-2003].
- The Minister of Public Enterprises:
Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Public Enterprises
for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-General of the
Financial Statements of Vote 9 - Department of Public Enterprises for
2002-2003 [RP 65-2003].
- The Minister of Social Development:
Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Social Development
for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-General of the
Financial Statements of Vote 18 - Department of Social Development for
2002-2003 [RP 174-2003].
- The Minister of Communications:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Independent
Communications Authority of South Africa for 2002-2003, including
the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for
2002-2003 [RP 146-2003].
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the National Electronic Media
Institute of South Africa for 2002-2003, including the Report of
the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2002-
2003.
- The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs:
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Department of Land
Affairs for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-General
of the Financial Statements of Vote 29 - Department of Land
Affairs for 2002-2003 [RP 174-2003].
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the Agricultural Research
Council for 2002-2003, including the Report of the Auditor-General
on the Financial Statements for 2002-2003 [RP 37-2003].