National Council of Provinces - 19 March 2003
WEDNESDAY, 19 MARCH 2003 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 14:10.
The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
POINTS OF ORDER
(Rulings)
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, before we proceed to the business of the day, I wish to deliver two rulings on points of order that were raised during the plenary of 18 March 2003. The first ruling concerns a point of order raised by Mr N M Raju at the plenary.
At our plenary on 18 March the hon Mr Sulliman moved a motion regarding the fact that the 2003 Cricket World Cup had reached the semifinal stages, congratulating Kenya on their achievement in advancing to the semifinal stage and congratulating the organisers of the World Cup, and further indicating the hope that the success of the 2003 Cricket World Cup would increase South Africa’s chances of hosting the 2010 Soccer World Cup. The hon Mr Raju raised a point of order to the effect that the same motion had been moved by himself at the sitting of the Council in Taung on 12 March 2003.
Having had the opportunity to consider both motions, I am of the opinion that while they both refer to the 2003 Cricket World Cup, they deal with different aspects thereof. Mr Raju’s motion, in essence, related to the loss suffered by the South African cricket team and called on South Africans to support the Kenyan and Zimbabwean teams, which were still part of the contest at that time.
Since the motions are not substantially the same, Mr Sulliman has not transgressed Council Rule 75(2)(a) and the motion is therefore not out of order.
The second ruling concerns a matter raised during the debate on the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill. During this debate on the date mentioned, 18 March 2003, the hon Kgoshi Mokoena raised a point of order regarding the speech which had been delivered by the special delegate from KwaZulu-Natal, the hon Mr V Naicker. In essence, the point of order related to whether Mr Naicker was allowed to speak on behalf of his political party, namely the IFP, or whether he was expected to put forward the view as contained in the mandate of the KwaZulu-Natal legislature.
The Chairperson of Committees, who was the officer presiding at the time, indicated to the hon Mokoena that he was not raising a valid point of order and allowed Mr Naicker to continue.
Before the end of the debate the hon Mr Sulliman raised a point of order to the effect that Kgoshi Mokoena had indeed raised a valid point of order and asked that the Chairperson of Committees make a ruling thereon. The Chairperson of Committees responded by saying that the matter had already been closed.
It is clear from the speakers’ list that Mr V Naicker was a special delegate representing the provincial legislature of KwaZulu-Natal. Section 61(4) of the Constitution provides that ``the legislature, with the concurrence of the Premier and the leaders of the parties entitled to special delegates in the province’s delegation, must designate special delegates, as required from time to time, from among the members of the legislature’’.
The special delegates, like the permanent delegates in the Council, wear two hats. They are members of particular parties and are able to convey that during their speeches, but on section 76 matters they must vote strictly in accordance with the provincial mandate. The principle is that the allocation of time should be used to canvass the mandate for which the time has been allocated. In this case the time had been allocated to the province of KwaZulu-Natal.
The important principle is that when it comes to section 76 voting on the issue, the special delegate is bound by the mandate of the province and is obliged to execute that mandate in voting. During the voting process on that day, the mandate of KwaZulu-Natal was clearly conveyed. Although I do not wish to labour the point, it is worth noting that the KwaZulu-Natal legislature has, on occasion, sent two special delegates from different parties, and the time allocated to the province has then been equally shared by the two speakers. I think we need say nothing further on this matter. These are the rulings that we table before the House this afternoon. [Applause.]
CROSS-OVER PERIOD
(Draft Resolution)
Ms C BOTHA: Madam Chair, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) the cross-over period starts tomorrow;
(b) the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Leon, welcomes MPs and
MPLs from other parties who support its policy and principles to
join its ranks;
(c) the DA seeks a mandate from voters to create a strong
alternative to the ANC ...
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon member, I wonder if you could use the microphone, because it seems that there are members who are keen to hear what you wish to say. They may be considering their options. [Laughter.]
Ms C BOTHA: Sorry, Madam Chair. It’s better from here. Must I repeat the motion?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: If you would.
Ms C BOTHA: I wish to move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) the cross-over period ...
[Interjections.] You can come, Joyce! [Interjections.]
... starts tomorrow;
(b) the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Leon, welcomes MPs and
MPLs from other parties who support its policy and principles to
join its ranks;
(c) the DA seeks a mandate from voters to create a strong
alternative to the ANC - indeed, the political struggle in South
Africa is developing into a competition between the ANC and the
DA;
(d) those who share its vision are welcome to join their party; and
(2) acknowledges that the DA regrets that members of the NCOP who so clearly want to join are not enabled to do so by the present legislation.
[Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Is there any objection to the motion? [Interjections.] The motion will therefore become notice of a motion.
EDEN FOR HIV/AIDS SOFTWARE
(Draft Resolution)
Me E C GOUWS: Voorsitter, ek stel sonder kennisgewing voor:
Dat die Raad kennis neem van die feit dat -
(1) die wêreld se eerste programmatuur om MIV/vigs in die werkplek te bestuur binnekort deur die Suid-Afrikaanse motorbedryf in werking gestel gaan word;
(2) die program, Eden vir MIV/vigs, deur die Stellenbosse maatskappy Indutech in samewerking met verskeie MIV-konsultante ontwikkel is;
(3) die programmatuur die bestuur van vigs in ‘n beginfase en ingrypingsiklus ontleed;
(4) die program omvattend in Suid-Afrika getoets is en nou aangepas word vir ander nywerheidsektore met groot getalle werkers; en
(5) die Suid-Afrikaanse motorbedryf geloof word vir sy baanbrekerswerk. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.) [Ms E C GOUWS Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council notes the fact that -
(1) the world’s first software on managing HIV/Aids in the workplace will be put into operation soon by the South African motor industry;
(2) the programme, Eden for HIV/Aids, was developed by the Stellenbosch company Indutech in conjunction with various HIV consultants;
(3) the software analyses the management of Aids into an initial phase and intervention cycle;
(4) the programme has been tested extensively in South Africa and is now being adapted for other industrial sectors with large numbers of workers; and
(5) the South African motor industry is commended for its pioneering work.]
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution. GALE IN MASILO AREA
(Draft Resolution)
Dr P J C NEL: Voorsitter, ek stel sonder kennisgewing voor:
Dat die Raad -
(1) kennis neem dat -
(a) skade van miljoene rand gisteraand deur 'n hewige windstorm
gepaardgaande met erge reën in die Masilo-woongebied in
Theunissen in die Vrystaat aangerig is;
(b) agt persone ernstig beseer is en in die hospitaal behandel word;
(c) die dak van die Thusono-kinderhuis en vyftig huise se dakke
afgeruk is en die Taiwe-hoërskool en vyf huise totaal vernietig
is en honderde mense dakloos gelaat is; en
(2) sy waardering uitspreek teenoor die rampbestuureenheid van Matjhabeng en die Noord-Vrystaatse areakommissaris, kommissaris Lerato Molale, wat al die lede wat aan diens was opgeroep het om hulp te verleen, vir die flinke en wonderlike wyse waarop hulle hulp verleen het aan die inwoners van Masilo; en
(3) sy meegevoel uitspreek.
Voorstel goedgekeur ooreenkomstig artikel 65 van die Grondwet. (Translation of Afrikaans draft resolution follows.)
[Dr P J C Nel: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) last night damage amounting to millions of rands was caused by a
strong wind storm accompanied by heavy rain in the Masilo area
in Theunissen in the Free State;
(b) eight people were seriously injured and are being treated in
hospital;
(c) the roofs of the Thusono orphanage and fifty houses were blown
off and the Taiwe High School and five houses were totally
destroyed and hundreds of people left homeless;
(2) expresses its appreciation to the disaster management unit of Matjhabeng and the Northern Free State area commissioner, Commissioner Lerato Molale, who called up all the members on duty to help, for the rapid and wonderful way in which they rendered assistance to the residents of Masilo; and
(3) expresses its condolences.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.]
NATIONAL AWARD TO NORTHERN PROVINCE MEC OF PUBLIC WORKS
(Draft Resolution)
Ms R P MASHANGOANE: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council -
(1) congratulates the MEC of Public Works in Limpopo, Collins Chabane, on the achievement of his department for winning the national award “The Impumelelo 2002 Re-a-Shoma Roads Maintenance Services Delivery Innovation Project”; and
(2) acknowledges that this confirms the commitment of the Government to accelerate delivery to the people.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
SUSPENSION OF LEARNER ON BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
(Draft Resolution)
Mr T S SETONA: Chairperson, I move on behalf of the Free State delegation:
That the Council - (1) notes with dismay the decision by the management of Lereko High School in Mangaung to suspend a learner on the basis of her sexual orientation;
(2) also notes that the school management took the decision despite a declaration by the parents of the learner about her sexual status;
(3) is of the opinion that such undemocratic practices may occur unnoticed in many public schools;
(4) believes that the action by the school management constitutes a gross violation of her human rights as entrenched in the Constitution;
(5) calls on the Human Rights Commission to speedily investigate this matter and to intensify awareness campaigns in schools about the rights of learners; and
(6) congratulates the MEC for Education in the Free State province, Mr Diratsagae Kganare, for the bold and decisive intervention in reinstating the child.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
APPOINTMENTS TO JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I move:
That, in terms of section 178(1)(i) of the Constitution, the following persons be designated to serve on the Judicial Service Commission: Bhengu, M J; Majodina, P C P; Surty, M E; Thomson, B.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: There is no speakers’ list on this motion. I shall therefore put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Is there any province that wishes to make a declaration of vote in accordance with Rule 71? There is none.
We therefore proceed to voting on the question. This will be done in the manner that members are now familiar with. Delegation heads must please indicate whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting. The Eastern Cape?
Nksz B N DLULANE: Liyavumelana. [It supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Free State?
Mr T S SETONA: We support.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Gauteng?
Mof J L KGOALI: Gauteng e a o tshehetsa. [Gauteng supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: KwaZulu-Natal?
Mrs J N VILAKAZI: KwaZulu-Natal supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mpumalanga?
Mnu B J MKHALIPHI: IMpumalanga iyawusekela. [Mpumalanga supports it.]
USIHLALO WEBHUNGA LESIZWE LAMAPHONDO: Bendithi usacinga. [I thought you were still thinking.] [Laughter.] Northern Cape?
Nkk E N LUBIDLA: i-Nyakatho Koloni iyavuma. [Northern Cape supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Northern Province?
Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Northern Province supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Western Cape?
Ms N D NTWANAMBI: Western Cape supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: All provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the motion agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
THE CHALLENGE OF BUILDING AND SUSTAINING A HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE IN TODAY’S WORLD AND THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF CHAPTER 9 INSTITUTIONS IN PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN SOUTH AFRICA
(Subject for Discussion)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Chair, hon members of the National Council of Provinces, colleagues and friends, in 1994 South Africa emerged from a past that denied our people their humanity and dignity. As we approach a decade of freedom we take pride in the wealth of human rights achievements in our wake and now look forward to another decade filled with new and interesting challenges.
The past eight years has seen our Government, armed with what is arguably one of the most progressive constitutions in the world, putting together a solid foundation for rights realisation. Building on this foundation, Government has, since 1994, carefully constructed the intricate architecture that has supported and will continue to support the development and growth of our constitutional democracy. Our approach has been holistic and incremental, with a distinct emphasis on the social and economic development of our people.
The ongoing social and economic development of our people builds on the historic achievement of our political freedom on that extraordinary day in April of 1994 when millions of people flocked to polling stations across the country to deliver a clear mandate for the transformation and reconstruction of our society. During the immediate afterglow of that momentous transition from pariah state to international citizen of good standing, we closed one of the darkest chapters of the world’s history and began the long road to the reconstruction of our society.
The ANC was the first to recognise that the struggle had taken on a distinctly new profile. The movement recognised that the international and domestic euphoria at the miracle of South Africa’s political freedom would have to be contextualised within the social and economic reality of the vast majority of our people. The path towards the achievement of a socially just people-centred dispensation would prove to be the single biggest challenge to face any government in modern history.
As you know, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will hand over its final report to our President, Mr Thabo Mbeki, on Friday, the anniversary of our national Human Rights Day. The reports of the commission chronicle the trials and tribulations of a microcosm of what was a national human tragedy. And as we acknowledge the work of the TRC this coming Friday, it is perhaps a good time to reflect on the significance and symbolism of this event.
When our President receives the report on behalf of the citizens of this country, we should perhaps reflect again on the extent of the damage inflicted upon our society by decades of institutionalised deprivation, domination and discrimination. This reflection should strengthen our resolve to fight poverty and underdevelopment and to renew our commitment to reconciliation and social justice.
Our Constitution has provided a legislative framework for the reform of our society, our economy and our institutions. Guided by the Constitution’s vision of a free and democratic society, Government has embarked on a series of legal, programmatic and institutional interventions designed to give substance to the rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Our primary challenge now is to reduce the gap between ambitious legislative measures and actual delivery on the ground. That is to say, our challenge now is to make rights real. Millions of our citizens are not only capable of playing an active part in this process, but are exceedingly willing to do so. At the end of this month Government will engage in a series of imbizos throughout the country to renew its contact with people from all walks of life. These imbizos provide an ideal interface for Government to engage with communities to renew the partnerships that have been established and to explore opportunities for further constructive ventures between Government and its civil society partners.
These imbizos, more than anything else, emphasise the importance attached by Government to the business of bringing our Constitution to life and sustaining it through ongoing dialogue, interaction and discourse. They provide a unique opportunity to share experiences and enhance mutual understanding. The feedback that we get from communities also provides invaluable information that guides us in improving service delivery and enhancing the mechanisms that impact positively on community development.
Apart from civil society, Government also relies heavily on other social partners, in labour and in the private sector, to assist in translating our constitutional rights into reality and to accelerate the pace of change. The agreed framework for change is one of sustainable development, and it is especially the rights of the poor and marginalised that are the focus of Government’s transformation efforts. The degree to which we are able to synergise the capacities of Government with those of its transformation partners will determine the success of our efforts.
In his State of the Nation address in February this year, the President observed that our people are developing a strong sense of common patriotism, despite resistance among some. Our country occupies an honoured place among the nations of the world as part of the global forces working for the progressive transformation of our common universe. None of this has happened on its own. It is the outcome of the elaboration and implementation of correct policies since 1994.
To maintain the current pace of change, we must intensify our implementation capacity and adopt a practical approach to nation-building in our country. The President identified realistic and achievable goals for us when he opened Parliament earlier this year. These were not randomly chosen areas of work. They were the result of a concerted and concentrated effort by Government to strengthen the human rights culture in our country. Areas of work that the President prioritised include the expanded service delivery to our people; improvements in the efficiency of the Public Service; increased social and economic investment; the elimination of corruption; and further improvements within the criminal justice system.
The President referred also to the challenge of eradicating poverty, the single factor most inhibiting to releasing the innate potential of all our citizens and according them the dignity to which they are entitled. South Africa does not stand alone in the fight against poverty. Our challenges are not unique. In fact, we have come to realise that these acute development challenges have strong regional and continental imperatives.
As a continent, we in Africa have come to realise that peace is an absolute prerequisite for development. And by peace we mean not merely the absence of formal hostilities, but rather the total absence of violence. We also know that war cannot be contained and isolated; its impact resonates across continents and cultures.
We are therefore extremely concerned about recent developments in Iraq. And as we watch events unfold in that arena, we might do well to recall the words of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his observation on the impact of globalisation on human rights and on development in its broadest sense. He said:
Today, no walls can separate humanitarian or human rights crises in one part of the world from national security crises in another.
What begins with the failure to uphold the dignity of one life, all too often ends with a calamity for entire nations.
The Budget recently announced by our Finance Minister, Mr Trevor Manuel, underwrites Government’s absolute commitment to social development within a framework of sustainability and human rights. It is also the first Budget that has earmarked, within the Safety and Security cluster, resources for the specific protection of vulnerable groups, namely women, children and the elderly.
Violence against women and children is a powerful deterrent to their development and the full enjoyment of their human rights. The Safety and Security cluster will continue to strive for an improved response to violence directed at our women and children through integrated and situation-specific programmes that link strongly with the efforts of the Social cluster departments.
As a means of addressing the human rights challenges that face Government, we have developed a National Action Plan for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. This comprehensive plan addresses the requirements of all the rights contained in our Bill of Rights. Government will in future mainstream this NAP into all Government plans. But these plans will be of no avail if Government does not vigorously continue the campaign to interact actively with our people.
It is our obligation to educate citizens not just about their human rights, but also about their human rights responsibilities. By supporting people in asserting their fundamental human rights through various initiatives in our communities, we will improve considerably our collective ability to reach out to the abused, the poor, the disadvantaged and victims of human rights violations. The assistance and co-operation of Chapter 9 institutions in the implementation and monitoring of our NAP are critical to the plan’s success.
In addition, I have an observation to make about the institutionalisation of democracy. If we are to develop a culture of human rights in our society, we must actively support the various institutions that sustain that democracy. This very institution, our national Parliament, is a particular case in point. In addition, we need to nurture and strengthen the various Chapter 9 institutions created by our Constitution with the specific purpose of enhancing democratic development. Our Chapter 9 institutions, created to support and strengthen constitutional democracy, have made significant contributions to enhancing a human rights culture, protecting gender equality and strengthening the democratic values of our Constitution among the people of South Africa.
Because of the legacy of apartheid and its record of gross human rights violations, the Constitutional Assembly made a conscious decision to create independent institutions that would support democracy. Indeed, the Chapter 9 institutions as we know them today have become an integral part of the constitutional architecture of our country.
At the launch of the South African Human Rights Commission in 1996, then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki observed that regardless of our past, and indeed because of it, South Africa was committed to the continuous and sustained material and spiritual upliftment of individuals and our society as a whole. The adoption of this stance further committed South Africa to a rights-based approach to governance within a framework of transparency and fairness. The creation of Chapter 9 institutions therefore gives concrete expression to the principles and visions of our Constitution, and their work must and can contribute to the attainment of a free and just society, free of discrimination, patriarchy and domination.
Recent work done by the Human Rights Commission in the Eastern Cape is a concrete example of how Chapter 9 institutions can contribute to the realisation of rights. I believe that these institutions will play an increasingly important role in assisting the people of this country to exorcise the spectre of our discriminatory past, so that we can fully achieve our individual and collective potential as envisaged in our Constitution.
Rights realisation cannot be achieved without addressing the structural causes of poverty and disempowerment. Our challenge now is to identify and cultivate a socioeconomic and political common ground that enhances a human rights culture. I believe that the inscription on South Africa’s coat of arms, the highest visual symbol in our new democracy, can guide us in this new era. The motto, !ke e:/xarra//ke, is written in the Khoisan language of the /Xam people, the oldest known inhabitants on the southern tip of Africa. It means literally, ``Diverse people unite.’’ It calls for unity and diversity and the recognition of a common humanity, regardless of race, class or gender. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mof J L KGOALI: Modulasetulo, Motshehetsi wa Letona la tsa Toka, maloko a hlomphehileng, ke tlotla ho nna kajeno ho nka karolo, matsatsi a mabedi pele re keteka letsatsi la ditokelo tsa rona. (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)
[Mrs J L KGOALI: Chairperson, Deputy Minister of Justice, hon members, it is a great honour for me to be participating two days before we celebrate our Human Rights Day.]
Our Constitution is the supreme law of this country, and Chapter 2 of this Constitution is the Bill of Rights, which outlines the cornerstone of our democracy. The Bill of Rights enshrines the rights to equality, human dignity, freedom and security of the person, freedom of religion and belief, freedom of expression, the right to be free from slavery, servitude and from forced labour, and numerous other rights and freedoms. In fact, we have been praised by the international community for having one of the most democratic institutions in the world.
But despite all our efforts as Government, we find that the fundamental rights of our people are still being trampled upon. In a report done by the Human Rights Commission in July and August 2000, the stories of ordinary South Africans, told at public meetings on racism, paint a gloomy picture of our new democracy. These stories were gathered from people from all walks of life, across the length and breadth of this country.
Ke rata ho qolla profensi ka nngwe, dintho tse etsahalang ka mora hore re amohele Molaotheo ona wa rona oo re o tlotlang hakana, o bileng o tlotlwang ke matjhaba. Profensing ya Kapa Botjhabela … (Translation of Sesotho paragraph follows.)
[I would like to talk about each province, and the things that happen after we adopted our Constitution, that we respect so much, that is respected by other nations. In the Eastern Cape province …]
… for example, a story was told of black children in an area called Swartkops, who were threatened with violence for playing in an area where white children were supposed to be playing.
As for the Free State, incidents were recounted of workers who were beaten and shot by farm owners. Also, there were disturbingly high occurrences of abuse of farmworkers in the form of underpayment, irregular working hours and other surprising ways that the people talked about in those gatherings.
In my own province, in Gauteng, the Commission for Gender Equality explained that black women were subjected to more intense subjugation: firstly as black South Africans, and secondly as women. The CGE showed that only seven percent of companies express a preference for employing black women, and then they are more likely to be employed in unskilled positions. A young woman explained how she had been promised a promotion from part- time to a full-time cashier when a position became free. But when that position became free, it was given to a white woman.
In KwaZulu-Natal, several submissions were discussed on the treatment of people who are living with HIV or are HIV-positive and have Aids. One individual said that the common perception that Aids was a black disease had contributed to the country’s failure to fight this epidemic. Therefore they, whoever, do not have any interest in discussing anything that has to do with Aids because they are not affected, and it is a disease of the black people.
In Mpumalanga, a story was told of a person who quarrelled with a white worker at a sugar factory near Nelspruit. Thinners was poured on his face, leaving him partially blind. To add to this insult, he was subsequently fired from the company. In negotiations with his employers, he was promised compensation, but to date it has not happened. Because we do not have money, at times we fall victim to having lawyers coming from the state, and some of the state lawyers are actually racist lawyers that are paid by the taxpayers of this country.
In the Northern Cape, one black woman reflected that racism is not only
about white people oppressing people with darker skin. In her case, she
experienced discrimination for speaking English well and having white
friends. She was called Little Miss White Princess'' andMrs English’’.
In Limpopo, a farm worker at Alldays farm did not return home from work, and his mother was told by the farmer that he had been beaten up and that they did not know where he was. His headless body was found in the river and, after examination by the police, his death certificate said that a crocodile had killed him. When his head was found, without any sign of a crocodile bite, a new death certificate was issued, and it said ``unknown disease’’.
In the North West, the home of simmering racial tensions in schools in Vryburg, and also in Jerricho, is one of the issues that we have to worry about.
In the Western Cape, low-income housing was cited as evidence of the prevalence of racism. The size, quality and location of these houses were seen as insulting. For example, the houses built in Philippi East have open toilets facing the living rooms. Even though these hearings were held in July, there are still far too many cases of ordinary citizens’ fundamental human rights being violated.
Right here in the Western Cape, in the Cape Flats, in this province, in the last two weeks we have seen the news of how innocent children have been killed merely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whole communities are being held hostage by gangsterism. Clearly we need to work together, both as the communities and as Government, to outlaw this gangsterism.
Communities know who the perpetrators are. They know where they live. Not speaking out on their activities should be far more frightening than any threats that gangsters make to individuals. In the long run, harbouring criminals could eventually lead to your own child having the same thing that happened to Tyrone Steenkamp … [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mnr A E VAN NIEKERK: Voorsitter, Suid-Afrika het ‘n grondwet wat in hoofstuk 9 ‘n onderbou bied om individuele regte te beskerm en uit te bou. Maar individuele regte is egter van min belang as hierdie regte van die gemeenskappe waarbinne dit gesetel is, nie beskerming geniet nie. Die Grondwet van Suid-Afrika doen dit ook. Artikel 185 van die Grondwet maak egter voorsiening vir die beskerming en bevordering van taal-, kultuur- en godsdiensgemeenskappe se regte, en hierdie kommissie behoort binne enkele maande ‘n werklikheid te word. Die advertensie vir die benoeming van kommissarisse behoort reeds volgende week te verskyn. Ek doen ‘n beroep op alle belanghebbendes uit alle taal- en kultuurgemeenskappe om mense te nomineer wat die saak kan dien.
Die Afrikaanse gemeenskappe het talle organisasies wat die gemeenskappe op hierdie gebied kan dien, maar dit is ‘n leemte by die meeste inheemse gemeenskappe. Die Afrikaanse gemeenskap is bereid om die bevoorregte posisie waarin hy is, aan te bied, en wil dit graag aanbied, om die ander gemeenskappe by te staan om op hierdie gebied georganiseerd te raak. Onthou, die Afrikaanse gemeenskap was gedurende die Britse oorheersing in dieselfde posisie as baie van die inheemse taal- en kultuurgemeenskappe nou, en het daaruit gegroei. Die wiel hoef nie van vooraf uitgevind te word nie. Kom ons werk saam op die taal- en kultuurgebied - wat ‘n basiese mensereg is - en maak Suid-Afrika werk vir ‘n beter lewe vir al die mense.
Dit was ons van ons voorvaders geërf het, mag nie deur ander vertrap of deur ons self geminag word nie.
Die agb Kgoali het verwys na menseregtevergrype in Suid-Afrika, maar wanneer ons daaroor praat, moet ons ook kyk na die behandeling van Suid- Afrikaners in ander wêrelddele. Aan die begin van verlede jaar het twee jong Suid-Afrikaners tydelik in Doebai in ‘n hotel gewerk. Op 16 September 2002 is hulle beskuldig van diefstal en in die tronk gestop. Van daardie dag af het ek begin onderhandel vir hulle vrylating. Ek moes telkens hoor dat ons eerder die proses sy gang moet laat gaan, want dit is nie ‘n regstaat nie, daar is nie ‘n uitleweringsooreenkoms met Suid-Afrika nie en mense se hande word daar nog afgekap, ensovoorts, ensovoorts. ``Don’t stir,’’ is daar vir my gesê.
Op 25 Februarie 2003 het die saak voorgekom - vyf en ‘n half maande later, maande wat hulle sonder verhoor in die tronk gesit het. Die seuns is onskuldig bevind, maar uit respek vir die sjeik aan wie die hotel behoort wat hulle aangekla het, het hulle ses maande tronkstraf gekry, waarna hulle gedeporteer sou word. Die deportasie kon nie plaasvind nie, omdat die hotel hulle paspoorte gehou het en Buitelandse Sake nie vinnig genoeg ander reisreëlings kon tref nie. Die hotel het nou geappelleer uit vrees vir teeneise - en hoe lank die kinders nou nog in aanhouding gaan bly, weet ons nie.
Buitelandse Sake probeer nou hulle bes, maar jongmense moet gewaarsku word teen hierdie soort vergrype van menseregte, alvorens hulle besluit om hul horisonne te verbreed. Agente werf hulle en gee nie vir hulle die feite nie. Vir hierdie basiese menseregte sal ek en my party - en ek weet elkeen in hierdie Raad ook - baklei. Hierdie is slegs een van talle voorbeelde van soortgelyke gevalle. Menseregte word nie oral ewe hoog aangeslaan nie.
So het ons ‘n soortgelyke situasie in Zimbabwe. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, South Africa has a Constitution which offers an infrastructure in Chapter 9 to protect and extend the rights of individuals. But individual rights, however, is of little importance if the rights of the communities in which they reside are not also protected. The Constitution of South Africa does this as well. Section 185 of the Constitution, however, makes provision for the protection and promotion of the rights of linguistic, cultural and religious communities and this commission should become a reality within a few months. The advertisement for the nomination of commissioners should appear next week. I am making an appeal to all interested parties from all linguistic and cultural communities to nominate people who can attend to the matter.
The Afrikaans communities have many organisations which can serve the community in this domain, but this is lacking in many indigenous communities. The Afrikaans community is prepared to offer, and would like to offer, the privileged position in which it now finds itself to assist the other communities to become organised in this domain. One should remember that the Afrikaans community was in the same position under the British occupation, as many of the indigenous linguistic and cultural communities now are, and grew from that. The wheel does not have to be discovered again. Let us work together in the linguistic and cultural domain, which is a basic human right, and make South Africa work for a better life for all its people.
That which we inherited from our forefathers, must not be trampled upon by others or disregarded by ourselves.
The hon Kgoali referred to human rights violations in South Africa, but when we talk about this we should also look at the treatment of South Africans in other parts of the world. At the beginning of last year two young South Africans temporarily worked in a hotel in Dubai. On 16 September 2002 they were accused of theft and imprisoned. From that day onwards I have been negotiating for their release. Time and again I had to hear that we should rather let the process run its course because it is not a constitutional state, that there is no extradition agreement with South Africa and people’s hands are still severed and so forth, and so forth. Don’t stir, I was told.
On 25 February 2003 the case came up for hearing - five and a half months later, months in which they sat in prison without a hearing. The young boys were found to be innocent, but out of respect for the sheikh to which the hotel belongs and who accused them, they received a prison sentence of six months, after which they would be deported. The deportation could not take place, because the hotel kept their passports and Foreign Affairs could not arrange other travel arrangements quickly enough. The hotel has now appealed for fear of counter claims - and how long the children will now be held in detention, we do not know.
Foreign Affairs are now trying their best, but young people should be warned against these types of human rights violations before they decide to broaden their horizons. Agents recruit them but do not give them all the facts. For these basic human rights my party and I - and I know everyone in this Council - will fight. This is merely one of many examples of similar cases. Human rights are not held in high esteem everywhere. We have a similar situation in Zimbabwe.]
A 16-page document just compiled by the US State Department and launched in Washington last week, blaming Mugabe and his government for the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe, is being tabled. It states, among other things, that Zimbabwe is in crisis: half the population is facing the threat of famine; up to 2 000 000 Zimbabweans have been displaced; 80% of adults are unemployed; and the rule of law has been replaced by the arbitrary and brutal rule of a self-appointed elite.
Oppression and the denial of human rights have gone hand in hand with economic collapse. With inflation running at 200%, food production has declined by 85% and the per capita income by 50%. With the economy collapsing, there are 100 000 economic refugees a month, most of whom are coming to South Africa, at the rate of about 3 000 a day - a huge extra burden for South Africa.
The US State Department’s paper is supported by the research of Unicef, which makes it clear that the main victims of these human rights abuses are women and children. They point out that over 600 000 children require targeted nutrition initiatives, nearly a million children do not have access to safe water and sanitation, and 150 000 children are in desperate need of protection from violence and abuse.
By riding roughshod over the political and human rights of his fellow Zimbabweans, by demonstrating his total disregard for human rights and democracy, Mugabe has succeeded in reducing a once promising nation with a bright future to a state of ruin.
But this will never happen in South Africa, for we have a Constitution that prevents it and we have leaders and a society that wish to uphold this Constitution. But why are our leaders not shouting it out from each and every possible platform? This is the message that must be heard. Let us, during the celebrations of Human Rights Day, celebrate the human rights our Constitution caters for. Let us strive to make it a reality for all South Africans, wherever they might be, but also for our neighbours in Africa. We have this responsibility and we should not try to escape it. I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms D M RAMODIBE: Hon Madam Chairperson, hon members, as we prepare ourselves to celebrate Human Rights Day on Friday, and simultaneously face an imminent war between the United States and Iraq, it seems appropriate that we reflect on our own struggle to ensure that peace reigns in this beautiful country of ours.
South Africa has, since its first democratic elections in 1994, forged unique pathways for the world to imitate and emulate. There can be no doubt that many prophets of doom predicted at the time that South Africans, having emerged from an oppressive past, would seek retribution from those architects of many atrocities committed against them during the dark apartheid days, thanks to the ANC-led Government. Some South Africans even bought into the predictions of a bloody revolution and, on the strength of that belief, fled our country sure that chaos and anarchy would prevail.
South Africa not only proved on that day in April 1994 that we had the political maturity to forgive and forget, especially after having gone through the TRC, but also expressed the rudiments of our fundamental confidence in our country and its leadership. We instead called for reconciliation. We understood at the time that we were the proud owners of our country, in charge of our own destiny, and determined that we would never again allow anyone to deny us our basic human right to freedom in the land of our birth.
Our Constitution was our first building block along the pathway of taking back our human rights and restoring the dignity and humanity of mankind. We based our Constitution on the founding principles of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedom. These founding principles reverberate throughout the text of our Constitution and form the basis of the mammoth task of reconstruction of a country almost destroyed by white oppression. We recognised that while it was a first step to have noble principles and ideals, we nonetheless needed to ensure that all our people had institutions that would strengthen democracy, protect human rights and actively promote a culture where human rights would flourish without despotic restrictions.
Chapter 9 of our Constitution fulfils this function. These independent institutions - the Public protector; the Human Rights Commission; the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities; the Commission for Gender Equality; the Auditor-General; and the Electoral Commission - have wide-ranging responsibilities, not the least of which is the promotion, protection and monitoring of human rights.
These institutions are empowered, therefore, with mechanisms to investigate and resolve human rights violations in whatever shape or form they present themselves. The mechanisms allow members of the public or institutions to lay a complaint about any public institution or private person. The complainant will thereafter have a justifiably reasonable expectation that their complaints will be redressed by the appropriate Chapter 9 institution. In the same vein, all of these Chapter 9 institutions are independent and all organs of state are constitutionally bound to assist and protect these institutions to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness.
If we examine the aims of the Commission for Gender Equality, as set out in section 187 of the Constitution, which is to promote gender equality and to advise and make recommendations to Parliament or any other legislature with regard to any laws or proposed legislation which affects gender equality and the status of women, we know that we have not come far enough in changing the mindset of South Africans with regard to the elimination of violence against women, the elderly and children. At the workshop held on the Justice for Women campaign in December last year, the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, Cheryl Gillwald, outlined, amongst other issues, that violence in the workplace is not getting sufficient attention. So too, when one interviews nurses, doctors, social workers and battered women, the refrain is all too familiar - women are still subjected to the most horrific, abusive situations imaginable. These abusers come from all walks of life: rich or poor, black or white and urban or rural.
It is unfortunate that the work of the Commission for Gender Equality has not spread to every part of our country, especially to the rural areas and also the former homelands where there are amakhosi. If it had, hopefully the number of abused women would have reduced drastically. There is still much work to be done by this commission, but more importantly by every woman in this country. She needs to be aware that she has a right to bring her problems to such a commission and expect results. In the same way our Human Rights Commission is afforded the power ``to take steps to secure appropriate redress where human rights have been violated’’
- section 184(2)(b) of the Constitution. An example of the work done by the HRC arose in 2000, when a Muslim student at a predominantly white college placed an article on the notice board of the school expressing an opinion on the Palestinian and Israeli issue that differed from another article on the same notice board. She was suspended from school. The matter was settled through the intervention of the HRC, with the college admitting that the way it had handled the incident was not beyond criticism or reproach, acknowledging that the conduct of certain of its staff had been inappropriate and apologising for the behaviour of one particular member of staff. The college agreed to work with the HRC in developing a programme of human rights training at the school.
Clearly, we are on the right path in dealing with the challenge of building and sustaining a human rights culture in South Africa. I have no doubt that with the appropriate resources, these Chapter 9 institutions will continue to do, with a strength of purpose, that which the Constitution directs them to do, to strengthen our constitutional democracy. [Applause.]
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, when dealing with the issue of human rights, specifically human rights in our country today, we need to reflect on the past, which the hon Minister has referred to, as well as the vision that motivates our future.
Now, our past system was based on the philosophy that Parliament itself was sovereign, that what Parliament did was, by definition, right. Parliament could do no wrong. This draws an important distinction between law and justice, because clearly what Parliament was doing in the past was actually enacting laws, but there was no concomitant requirement that the laws they enacted should be just in any sense of the word.
This stands in stark contrast to the philosophy which we all adopted in negotiating our interim Constitution and our final Constitution, which we accepted and acknowledged: that there has to be some sort of standard of what we would call, in philosophical terms, natural justice - something that must apply to all. By definition human rights apply to all of us. We are all human beings, and we all have these rights.
Now, this is in stark contrast to the philosophy that motivated the previous regime which we all lived under, and many people in this room suffered under: the fact that laws, by definition, didn’t need to be just. I can only mention a few, but there are many laws that fall into these categories: the laws of job reservation, the laws of influx control, detention without trial. There are many of them. I think, when we reflect on Human Rights Day, we should reflect on these issues as well, and not forget what happened in the past.
But we should also not forget that we all look towards a brighter future - a future based on the acknowledgement that we are all human beings, that we all share the same fundamental rights, and that these rights, by definition, apply to everybody, whether the person in our country is merely a tourist or a visitor, or an economic refugee, or a political refugee, or indeed a citizen. We all enjoy the same fundamental human rights.
There have been problems recently relating to xenophobia and other discrimination against various refugees, and I think we need to acknowledge that. As leaders in our community, we need to show that this type of conduct is really at odds with our basic philosophy, the philosophy that describes the foundation of our country.
These rights, applying to all, also apply vertically and horizontally, as they put it in technical terms. In other words they do not just apply between the citizens and the organs of state, but also between citizens and other private bodies. Just to give an example of this: If a restaurant owner were to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their race or sexual orientation, this clearly would not be acceptable to our society, and we would not accept it.
In our Constitution we have established the Chapter 9 institutions. Although one doesn’t wish to say in any way that one is more important than another, principal amongst them in the context of the present debate is the Human Rights Commission, which clearly has been charged with ensuring that the rights we have set out in our Constitution achieve fruition, and assisting us in achieving an equitable distribution of material means as well, because rights can be meaningless if our society stays in a state of pervasive poverty.
We have accepted this, and that is why we have the so-called second generation rights, which ensure that certain health services will be provided to all, education will be provided to all, and food security will also be established and provided to all. But as ours is a developing country, obviously these things are difficult to provide. We cannot wave a magic wand and ensure that they are there overnight, but we have to progressively ensure that these things are in fact delivered to the people, and the Human Rights Commission plays a role in this.
I have recently had a look through the fifth annual report of the Human Rights Commission, as well as their February newsletter. These appear to be the latest available documents on them, but they are somewhat dated, because the fifth annual report deals with the period from January 2000 to March 2001.
It is important to look at what the commissioners in the Human Rights Commission were saying to us, and I wish to highlight two quotes. The first one is on page 2 of the fifth annual report, where the commission states:
We often wish that there was more debate and dialogue about the reports we have been publishing, more questions asked in Parliament, and more analysis and interpretation in terms of column inches in our newspapers.
So clearly the commissioners, at the time when they wrote that report, felt …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Hon member, your speaking time has expired.
Mr L G LEVER: Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr M J BHENGU: Sihlalo, izolo kusihlwa ngike ngathatha incwadi lena ekhuluma ngamalungelo esintu. Ngithole isimanga sokuthi u-Article 1 ufundeka njengoba ngizosho: [Chairperson, yesterday in the evening I took a book on human rights. I was surprised to find that Article 1 reads as follows:]
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Our country prides herself on having a Constitution that has entrenched a Bill of Rights, which is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa, based on human dignity, equality and freedom. The Government of my country, since its inception in 1994, has put almost all the measures in place to redress the inequalities of the past in terms of the equality clause.
Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have his or her dignity respected and protected. The central phrase here is ``human dignity”: ukuba ngumuntu [being human].
The overarching aims of the Constitution are closely related to social security goals - that is, healing the injustices of the past, ensuring social justice, improving the quality of life for all South Africans and freeing the potential of each citizen. The meaning of the constitutional fundamental rights has to be determined and understood against the background of past human rights abuses.
Recently, in the North West province, we debated a lot about pushing back the frontiers of poverty. To me this issue is absolutely central, because it is about something that poses a threat to our new democracy. When we talk about human dignity we need to be aware that poverty is an antithesis of human dignity, in the sense that poverty dehumanises one and robs one of human dignity and integrity.
A closer look at socioeconomic conditions amongst our people reveals shocking statistics. The recent revelation by Stats SA, who reported that 32% of African households were jobless. In 1999, that percentage had risen above 38. Translated into numbers, this suggested that there were about 1,9 million Africans who were without work.
Of approximately 210 000 African households, according to Stats SA, about 182 000 spent on average less than R800 per month. About 11% of households with children under seven went hungry in 1999 due to inability of money to buy food. About 2,3 million households with people aged seven and older went hungry due to the inability to purchase food.
This is despite existing measures to address the various dimensions of poverty. The reality is that, depending on the poverty line used, about 20 million to 28 million citizens are living in poverty. The incidence of poverty differs between different provinces. The Western Cape and Gauteng have the lowest rates of poverty. Mpumalanga, the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu- Natal and the Northern Province are said to have high rates of poverty.
We all know that a key factor in South Africa is the skewed distribution of economic assets. Apartheid was central to this skewed … [Time expired.]
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I enjoyed very much the Deputy Minister’s excellent speech. On Friday, of course, we will celebrate Human Rights Day. We need to understand that as with all liberties, we in our generation and in this Parliament have to defend and preserve and expand those freedoms earned over centuries, often with the blood of patriots.
The 20th century has been one of the most bloody centuries in human history. Over the last century more people have been enslaved in the name of human rights than ever before in world history, and this makes our achievement that much greater. Eastern and Central Europe, the Far East, Central America and Africa are littered with former communist countries with high-flown constitutions that have failed their people.
Societies and revolutions need to be judged, ultimately, by their fruits. We have seen incredible convulsions in the 20th century: China of the Great Helmsman, Kim II Sung’s Korea, Vietnam’s Uncle Ho, Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu and Angola under Neto. We have seen not only crimes against humanity but crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin’s destruction of thousands of churches in Moscow and elsewhere to the literary and artistic devastation of Mao’s Red Guards.
The Black Book of Communism, which I have here, is written by the most distinguished authors of their kind in the world. I can quote from The New York Times, which says:
No one will any longer be able to claim ignorance or uncertainty about the criminal nature of communism, and those who have begun to forget will be forced to remember anew.
I recommend this to all of my colleagues.
The death toll in the Soviet Union is 25 million, 65 million in China, 1,7 million in Cambodia. Wherever Communism was established, usually in the name of freedom and human rights, some terror and repression followed. So it is not only what we in South Africa say, or what our Constitution says, but what we do in our country that is important. In our country we have sought constitutional government. The Constitution is our highest law, and thank God for that, and we in this Parliament are sworn to uphold that law.
We must never for one moment forget to appreciate the huge achievement of our country to date, and we must jealously guard against any retreat from the heights we have attained. Indeed, the past decade or so has seen South Africa at its best and noblest. We have elevated our society. People will look back upon this time with pride. Indeed, many people still in this Parliament today will be seen as the founding fathers in the establishment of a great new future in our country.
But we need to continue to foster a culture of human rights, and at the heart of this is respect for life, for liberty and for property. The way in which we interpret our Constitution remains vital. In the name of the right to life we condone, allow and promote abortion, with an estimated 285 000 babies killed by abortion on demand over the past six years. What a brutalisation of society! It is a massive brutalisation.
Since the abolition of the death penalty in 1989, 250 000 murders have occurred in our country. In the past week five innocent children have been killed in the crossfire. But both abortion and the abolition of the death penalty have been argued in the name of human rights. The scales have tipped in favour of the criminal. Where there is lack of morality, human rights will suffer.
We lose the moral high ground when we claim for ourselves human rights but condone, or do not speak out against, the actions of despots like Robert Mugabe. Our attitude to the grotesque violations of human rights in that country makes a mockery of the peer review process of Nepad and devalues our own commitment to human rights.
However, I am proud of what our country has achieved constitutionally and in the field of human rights. I am proud of our leaders who have inspired us over the past decade. I am proud of the ordinary South Africans that have allowed our country to be great and supported the process. I am proud of this great parliamentary institution and of our right and duty to defend those liberties.
Let us in our generation rededicate ourselves to the great values of human rights that have been a product of the reformation. [Applause.]
Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, it’s so wonderful to listen to people like Kent Durr talking about Zimbabwe and so on and about the violations of human rights there. I thought maybe he was going to start here at home. It’s nice to condemn other countries who are said to be communists and so on. I thought he would mention Israel, to start with, and from there go on to mention America - their friends. There is no way in which we can ignore what is happening in Israel and say, simply because they are our friends, that what they are doing is good. If there is any violation of human rights one can speak of, one can immediately think of Israel. They are there in our own country.
Of course, I was so disappointed, listening to the colleague whom I respect so much, the hon Van Niekerk, talking about Zimbabwe and so on and condemning our Government for not coming out clearly and condemning Zimbabwe.
It depends on whether one understands our policy as a Government. The policy is to engage, to talk to your colleagues or other governments. You don’t solve problems by just condemning and making a noise. You can’t do that. We are supposed to start here at home and ask ourselves if it is right for our people to be denied those few basic rights such as having clean water.
They are good enough to work on those farms, but at the same time, when they want clean water they are asked to go and draw it from the river. I can’t overlook that and look at Zimbabwe while our people here at home are harassed. I agree that there are other things which are done, for example things mentioned by the hon Van Niekerk such as the South Africans ill- treated in Dubai.
I thought we would start from our corner here in the Northern Cape where two young boys were denied the right just to pass through a sportsfield, because it happened to be a place where some of their fellow young boys, who happened to be white, were practising rugby. It was before the match had started. So those poor guys were passing through. It was an offence. They were beaten. I thought that was where we would start, if we were serious about these things.
I want to correct some people who are distorting our history. Forty-three years ago, our leaders said that enough was enough, and it could be more than enough in the case of the pass laws. They mobilised our people to do what we call in our language: Kgwabo ka seboka [mass demonstration].
Ba ile ba lokisa gore ba ye go gwanta, ba gwaba gore ba lapisitswe ke go sika le di-dompas. Ge ba le gare ba huahuetsa gore setshaba se tsoge … [They prepared themselves for a march to demonstrate that they were sick and tired of carrying the dompas. As they were busy appealing to the nation to wake up …]
… in the four so-called regions before - Transvaal, Natal, Orange Free State and the Cape …
… ge ba thoma go kgobokantsha batho, baetapele ba rena - ba ANC - ba ile ba swarwa. Ge ba se no swarwa pele ga ge ba phethagatsa seo ba se thomilego, go ile gwa tla batho ba bangwe gomme ba kgelosetsa lenaneo leo lemanogeng le le sele. [… as they were busy arranging mass gatherings, our leaders - the ANC leadership - were arrested. Since they were arrested before they could implement what they have started, there came some opportunists who led our people into a completely different direction.]
I am talking about the Sharpeville of 1960. The whole process was hijacked because our leaders were arrested then. Some people said that that march had been organised by the PAC. That is not true. History must be set down, because people are distorting it. That demonstration and march was organised by the ANC. But before they could implement that, they were arrested - our leaders. Therefore, Sobukwe and the others, because they were outside and were running around, hijacked that process. That must be told in clear terms. I thought that I had to clarify that one.
Where do we come from?
Bana bana ba rena le lehono ga ba dumele gore go bile le nako yeo e lego gore e be e le molato gore mothomomoso a ithekele bjalwa. Bana ba rena ga ba dumele gore e be e le molato gore mothomoso a hlape go beach goba swimming pool yeo e bego e diriswa ke babasweu. Bana ba rena ga ba dumele gore e be e le molato go mothomoso go iketla phakeng yeo go be go thwe ke ya babasweu. Bana ba rena ga ba dumele gore e be e le molato go mothomoso gore a ka apara unifomo goba jeresi ya setlhopha sa bosetshaba sa naga ya gabo. (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)
[Today, our children do not believe us when we tell them that there had been times in our country when it was an offence for a black person to buy liquor for himself. Our children do not believe us when we tell them that there had been times in our country when it was an offence for a black person to bathe in a swimming pool or swim at a beach which was meant to be used by whites only. Our children do not believe us when we tell them that there had been times in our country when it was an offence for a black person to relax in a park that was meant to be used by whites only. Our children do not believe us when we tell them that there had been times in our country when it was an offence for a black person to put on a jersey similar to the one used by a national team of his or her country.]
Our rugby player Tobias was denied a chance to wear the jersey of the national squad because he happened not to be of the other colour. When our kids hear about some of these things, they do not believe that that used to happen.
O ka se dumele gore e be e le molato gore mothomoso a namele terene go First Class ka tshelete ya gagwe. Bana ba rena ga ba dumele tseo ka moka. [Our children do not believe us when we tell them that there had been times in our country when it was an offence for a black person to buy a first class train ticket with his or her own money.]
But it is true. In this very Parliament, when a coloured person used a lift and it happened that a white person entered that lift, that poor coloured person was supposed to get out of the lift to allow the white person to come in. He could only use the lift when the white person was out of it. That used to happen in this very Parliament. When our kids hear all these things, they think it’s just a story, but it’s a fact. It is where we are supposed to start if we are really concerned about the violation of human rights in this country, rather than jumping to Colombia or wherever. Let us start here.
My colleague the hon Kgoali reminds me that it was an offence even to use a mere toilet used by whites. If you were caught using one, you would be heavily punished. As a country we have moved on.
Re tswile go lekgoba leo gomme bjale re batho. [We are now free from that slavery, and today we are human beings.]
We are happy because our fellow South Africans and our white brothers and sisters agree that what happened in the past was wrong and that we should move forward. They agree, but at the same time there are few, very few …
… bao e lego gore ba sa ganelela go tsa kua morago [… of those who are still yearning for the past.] It is up to us as patriotic South Africans and those who know where they are going to take them along with us. Some will be kicking and screaming, but let’s drag them along. We will get somewhere with them. Let’s not get tired.
A re yeng le bona. [Let’s go with them.]
I know that it’s not easy, but one day we will get there with them.
Re a leboga ka gore bjale Molaotheo wa rena o re dumelela gore tseo tsa maloba ka moka ga tsona di be di le nono; di be di se tsa loka. A re tsweleng pele re someng bjaloka batho. Re kgopela ka moka bao ba tsebago gore ba nyaka go tswela pele le rena gore re swaraneng ka matsogo re re tsa maloba e be tsa maloba. E tla ba lethabo go rena ge e le gore … (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)
[We are thankful that our Bill provides that the past has gone, and gone forever. They were unjust. Let us go forward and work like people. We ask all those who want to go forward with us to hold hands and say the past belongs to the past. We will greatly rejoice if …]
… in this House, we are all going to say: Yes, it’s true, enough is enough and we can’t take more than enough. We’ve had enough of what happened in the past and now we are ready to go forward.
Ke a leboga. [Legofsi.] [Thank you. [Applause.]]
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Thank you, Chair. I hope you’ll be patient with me. I’ve got little bits of paper all over the place and I also have to try and decipher my own terrible handwriting because I furiously made notes during this process, and I’m afraid I didn’t do a very good job. I’m much better with a keyboard than a pen.
We are all so aware of how race, class and gender conspire to place the African rural woman at the very bottom of the human rights hierarchy. The hon member Kgoali’s many inputs chronicled the dire conditions that our people, especially in the rural areas, continue to experience. And we should never forget about that intersectionality of human rights, particularly for those of us who have the privilege of jobs, the privilege of a past society where we benefited from an education that was given freely, with every mod con. We should never forget that intersectionality; that poverty, race, class and gender put people at the bottom of this hierarchy and make them incredibly vulnerable to the vagaries of modern-day society.
And then there were the hurts that were described about having to leave a lift. I was very embarrassed recently. I wandered away from the NEC meeting in Gauteng with a black colleague during lunch time and we went to get a cooldrink. We walked into a cafe together and, by virtue of the way we had to walk in, he actually came to the counter first, and so I stood aside. The man actually just looked at him and then looked at me and said: ``Can I help you?’’ And it was a complete annihilation of the man’s dignity. The man that I was with was perfectly able to defend his own rights, but it was just automatic. In fact, what was perhaps more damaging is that the person serving had no malevolent intent; they weren’t even aware of the pain they were causing.
So we need to remember that very often very small actions can cause enormous pain, and again I’d like to refer to our children. It is something else when you infringe upon an adult’s rights because they at least have a way of defending, but children often start to believe that they don’t deserve those rights, and you then start a whole thing of insecurity and also a lack of certainty about one’s own rights. So I think we need to be particularly careful with one another and one another’s children. And since our children now in this new society do meet in our schools, it’s an ideal opportunity to show them that we have faith in the future. I will move along a bit; I’m dragging it out.
Language rights referred to by the hon Van Niekerk is a very important issue and here, as a language-disabled person, I would like to congratulate this House on the many attempts by members to make their languages heard by the people who listen to this on television. I think you all deserve a round of applause. It is a conscious effort and I think you do it very well. [Applause.]
I do agree with the hon Van Niekerk, but perhaps our young people are becoming a little complacent about their rights, particularly when they travel. And I might just say to you that I have a lawyer friend who might guide us in this process. He will not travel - and he is a very well- travelled person - to any other country that has the death penalty, his view being that while he’s alive he can still defend himself, but when he’s dead he can’t, and so he will not visit any legal jurisdiction that has the death penalty. And this is something we assume as a right and as an appropriate thing, so we very often, I think, don’t realise what a wonderful Constitution we have.
The hon Ramodibe highlighted the roles of our Chapter 9 institutions and the need to improve their reach in the rural areas. Now here I think the NCOP has an important role to play because I know that the Human Rights Commission has regional offices, so do the gender commissions, and I think that we must encourage our constituents, our Government agencies to liaise very strongly in the regions with those institutions that are regionally represented. I think also, importantly, Parliament should explore how it enhances the relationship between the HRC and other commissions because these commissions are required to report to the National Assembly in our Constitution. There was a reference by the hon Lever to how the HRC would love to have their reports debated and maybe what we are doing is just looking at their reports and filing them. We have a lot of work to do, but maybe we need to review that and maybe a very good place to start is with the annual reports of the various commissions that report to this august institution.
The hon Lever also described very well the dilemma we face as an emerging economy, where the needs of our people are so great that we have had to take a very painful decision that our delivery programmes will be sustainable and that they will be incremental, and it’s to achieve the balance between maximising the reach of our delivery services and the realisation of people’s rights through concerted efforts and then also within a framework of sustainability. So we are all agreed it is a huge challenge and we need to find the common ground that takes us forward.
With regard to the hon Bhengu, I really thought that his observation was very astute that poverty is the antithesis of dignity. I think you sometimes get little groups of small words that actually say a lot and it’s something that I will use again when I am trying to describe how people who live in abject poverty are robbed of their humanity and dignity.
Also, I think the other thing is that because we are so busy educating ourselves in constitutional democracy and educating others, and because we are politicians, we very often use the same words: constitutional democracy, human dignity. We must be sure that when we use them we don’t dilute their importance. We must always speak to the importance of those key phrases that capture the heart and soul of our Constitution. Let’s not dilute their value by not giving them meaning.
The hon Durr referred to enslavement, and modern slavery has a very nasty
face. Women and children are traded across international borders the world
over. I had the privilege to spend some time with the prosecutor for
organised crime. That was the first institution that was set up to fight
organised crime in Italy, the Mafia. Now of course they have the Cosa
Nostra, and then the Albanian Mafia and it goes on and on, because they
have very different characteristics. And he said to me, in almost a matter-
of-fact way, Drugs are now becoming a secondary problem for us''. So I
said,What do you mean?’’ He said, ``Well, humans and human body parts
are far more valuable than drugs.’’ He described incidents in which
Nigerian women had been lured to Italy with promises of work and enslaved
for sex for years before the Italian anti-Mafia unit cracked the syndicate
and released them and gave them back their passports and let them go back
home.
Also, there is the horrible story of finding street children, who are poor and have no reference points, walking around dazed from very crude anaesthetics, and when the police find them one of their kidneys is missing or something because there is a very good market. So, slavery has new implications and an impact on women and children. I would urge those committees that are related to make sure that this Parliament gets its legislation on the trade in humans sorted out as soon as we can.
Having made that very astute observation, Mr Durr’s comments on communism will remain unchallenged because I would need more than an afternoon to re- educate him. So, Mr Durr, if you will take that as a friendly offer, that we will one day …
Mr K D S DURR: [Inaudible.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Oh, that book isn’t the sole authority.
On women’s rights to control their own bodies, I will take issue. You, sir, by virtue of your gender and your simplistic political and gender analysis are excused for what must be a real lack of understanding about the oppression of women, because I am certain that you do not want to be part of the perpetuation of this oppression. And I urge you to rethink your stance on this. The cost to women annually is devastating.
Hon Mokoena always describes very succinctly the challenges that face us as a society and as individuals, and I think that one thing that we need to do, because this is a debate about South Africa and our own rights, is to look at some of the other places that have real problems. And let us just look at Palestine: 762 000 refugees with no chance to return, destroyed homes, children dying in the street. So I think that we need to reaffirm as South Africans our commitment to human rights, but I think we also need to say: ``How do we become advocates of human rights internationally?’’ Because it is very easy to be self-focusing in the dire straits in which we sometimes find ourselves. But I think that we have a role to play because we have models that work. And I think people are honestly curious about using our mechanisms. I then would like just to tell you about a small thing we have done. In fact, it’s actually a big deal, so I won’t minimise it in any way. We have set up a new directorate which deals with Chapter 9s. Their most important functions are to facilitate the budgetary process in assisting financial arrangements because, you know, with this independence thing one doesn’t want to put too many limitations on them having to bargain and plead for money. So we think that this is an important thing. Their second function is promoting proposals that emanate from these institutions’ reports, and this is very important so that once they make proposals the message is sent out and people are educated about that. Other functions include ensuring compliance with the Constitution, evaluating and assessing the legislation and promoting and maintaining communication channels between the nine institutions and state departments. It’s an exploration of how we enhance the capacity of these institutions without interfering with their central integrity.
I’d also like to tell you that Adv Barrington Mkhize, who is head of that directorate, is here with us today and I suggest you touch base with him. He has an enormous challenge. Partly one of the things he has to do will be a bit of a voyage of discovery, because he will have to make his job meaningful. So to a large extent we’ve described the tasks, but he’s going to give meaning to how we enhance the role that these institutions play without limiting the extraordinary potential that they have. I think …
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson. Sorry, may I please ask the Deputy Minister a question?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Well, it will depend on the Deputy Minister whether she wants to take a question. Do you want to take a question, hon Deputy Minister?
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: I’ll take the question, but I don’t know much more about the unit, so if it’s about that … OK.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: The question is merely: With regard to the directorate, are they going to look at incorporating PanSALB as an independent organ as well in the Chapter 9 context?
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: I will tell you quite honestly that I do not know, but do ask the gentleman whom we have tasked with the efforts that I described. I’m sure he’ll be able to assist. Sorry I can’t help you.
And finally, thank you for listening to me blather on for such a long time, but it was a really good debate and once again I enjoyed participating in this House. Thank you, Chair. [Applause.]
THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
(Subject for Discussion) Mrs C NKUNA: Eka Mutshami wa Xitulu wa siku ra namuntlha, ni le ka vachaviseki hinkwenu laha ndlwini inkomu [Chairperson and hon members of this House], it is indeed an honour for me to participate in this debate on oversight and accountability.
I think it would be appropriate for someone to explain briefly what
oversight is. Oversight'' refers to the crucial role of legislatures in
monitoring and reviewing actions of the executive organs of state.
Accountability’’ refers to giving an account of actions on policies for
spending, explaining and justifying against criteria of some kind. We take
measures or make amendments so as to make a point of ensuring that
particular faults or errors do not occur again, and we ensure that the
executive implement laws in the way required by the legislature and the
demands of the Constitution.
We recommitted ourselves, at our 51st national conference in Stellenbosch, to transforming the state and governance, and in particular the legislatures, meaning nationally and provincially, as well as the municipalities at local level, with the objective of improving our ability to monitor and assess the performance of Government departments, state agencies, etc.
The principal role of this House is to ensure that provincial and local concerns are recognised at the national policy-making level. The role of the National Council of Provinces in terms of oversight is provided for by section 100. The provision in this section empowers this House to table a notice which provides for the intervention by the national executive in any province which has failed to fulfil an executive obligation in terms of legislation or the Constitution in any of the nine provinces. Similarly, section 139 provides for intervention in municipalities which is of a more intense and focused nature.
Now I come to Chapter 3 of the Constitution, which provides for co- operative governance whereby the three spheres of government are obliged to adhere to its principles - that is, the principles of Chapter 3 in the Constitution. Section 41 compels all spheres to secure the wellbeing of all the people of South Africa.
The oversight role played by the NCOP in the Constitution is twofold. In the Constitution we have sections in terms of which the NCOP plays an oversight on its own. Also in the Constitution we have sections in terms of which the NCOP plays its oversight role together or in partnership with the National Assembly. The NCOP has to guard against the abuse of the various powers of intervention. For example, where the national executive intervenes in a province under section 100, it is the NCOP that must approve of and regularly review the intervention.
Where the provincial executive intervenes in a municipality under section 139(1)(b), it is also the NCOP that has to make a point of approving and regularly reviewing the intervention. In a situation where there are administrative disputes, it is the NCOP which must make a review, and that is provided for by section 125(4) of the Constitution. Section 216 provides for both Houses to stop a transfer of funds to a province. Section 146(2) says that a piece of delegated legislation cannot prevail over another law.
It is the NCOP that monitors the effectiveness of the intergovernmental relations mechanisms in any field. Well, as I said earlier on, there are those areas where the NCOP practises its oversight role in partnership with the NA. Section 199(8) deals with the security services, for instance, and we find that though the security services are a core national competence, we do have committees and MECs at provincial level, but they are accountable to the national Ministry.
Cases where an international agreement has to be approved are provided for by section 231, in terms of which both Houses are responsible, and according to section 203 the declaration of a state of a national defence is also done by both Houses.
When it comes to public participation, we will all remember that two weeks back we were in the provinces dealing with the third and the fourth constitutional amendments, and with the Powers and Immunities of Parliament Bill. All that was done in the nine provinces simultaneously and we took on board the stakeholders on the ground.
Allow me to now come to the division of revenue and oversight responsibility of the NCOP. The allocation of resources to the three spheres of government is recognised as a critical step in the budget process. It is essential for national Government, the nine provinces and each of the 284 municipalities to be able to determine their own budget. On Wednesday 12 March 2003, the national Department of Education submitted a comprehensive report on conditional grants to the public hearings hosted by the Select Committee on Finance in the National Council of Provinces.
The department reported that by 31 January 2003 Limpopo province had spent 36,9% and the Eastern Cape 35% of their financial management and quality enhancement conditional grants. The Education department argued that the fact that provinces had not spent much of their allocated funds indicated that procurement procedures and payment processes hindered expenditure in their provinces. The department also explained that despite the under- expenditure, the overall level of expenditure showed an improvement over time. The Education department also reported that provinces on average had spent 61% of their HIV and Aids grants in the financial year ending March
- The Education department has withheld the transfer of funds until our provinces can give reasons for the low expenditure.
During the same public hearings the national Department of Health argued that provinces spent 43,1% of their HIV and Aids grants. Four provinces have significantly underspent and additional funds have been targeted towards provinces with a stronger spending performance. So the more you spend, the more you will be given; the less you spend, the more you will suffer. This voluminous underspending is cause for concern to us as public representatives, and we need to determine how we can intervene.
Members of the provincial legislatures and the National Council of Provinces are earnestly requested to play a more active and vital role in monitoring spending by provincial departments. If discrepancies exist in provincial financial reporting, it is likely that discrepancies will be revealed on delivery as well. Moreover, MPLs and NCOP members should exercise extraordinary vigilance in order to monitor the spending patterns of conditional grants to provincial departments.
In conclusion, on oversight and accountability, let me start by saying that
oversight is something which we have to appreciate and look at very
positively, and not take as some witch-hunting mechanism. Oversight is
something which we have to debate and talk about as members of the
legislatures and as the stakeholders. We have to debate it with the
nongovernmental organisations that play a role in exercising their
oversight and discuss or talk about it with Chapter 9 institutions. Then we
will be moving towards a situation where we can truly say, This is the
people's Parliament'', and The people are governing’’. I thank you.
[Applause.]
Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, the hon Nkuna has given a comprehensive speech
on the matter of oversight. I am going to highlight certain issues. The
first is that I think little is served, to start off, by examining
mechanical definitions of the term oversight'' or accountability’’.
They are, in essence, different sides of the same coin. It serves more
purpose to look at the structure of our Government as set out in the
Constitution and at what we, as a House of Parliament, are required to do
by the Constitution.
Oversight and accountability form part of the covenant that we, as public representatives, have with the voters because they comprise one of the important checks and balances that exist in our political system. We have an executive, the legislative arm of Government, the judicial arm of Government and, of course, the administrative arm and Public Service. The Constitution requires us, as part of the legislative arm of Government, to have oversight over the executive and to hold the executive to account. This does not mean that we can say, ``Well, it should be done in this area or that area.’’ It is quite broadly based.
We have a very strong, in fact a very good and progressive, piece of legislation in the Public Finance Management Act, which, as far as financial accountability goes, is an excellent piece of legislation. But we need to look at sections 55(2), 92(2), 92(3)(b), 100 and 139 of the Constitution when examining oversight, specifically in regard to one of the Houses of Parliament. Section 55(2) essentially deals with the obligation that the National Assembly has in respect of oversight and the mechanisms that they must put in place to give effect to their duty to have oversight and hold the executive to account.
However, if we look at the Corder report, which is based on a lot of work that was done in examining the roles that the different Houses play, we find that it saw a very narrow role for the National Council of Provinces in oversight: In other words, that it should restrict itself only to its principal focus of looking at national Government’s implementation of legislation and policy that impacts on and affects provinces and local government.
For a very long time we had a joint committee of both Houses where we examined the Corder report. All of us discussing the chapter that dealt with the National Council of Provinces felt that that narrow view was not really justified. There were a number of reasons for that. I would recommend that all members of this House read that report, specifically chapter 4. I would specifically refer to the deliberations of the committee and our recommendations, which are set out on pages 35 to 37.
I am not going to read them out, but I think that we did set out our reasons for saying that it is somehow artificial to simply say to us that we need to have only a narrow focus in oversight, because oversight encompasses a number of things. One cannot be blind to something, have a blinkered view and look at something when clearly you can see an obligation and perhaps a duty to do something in another area which simply overlaps. As the hon Chief Whip pointed out to us, duplication in oversight does not necessarily translate into duplication in corrective action. Hand in hand with this duty and obligation of oversight is also a duty and obligation to correct issues where something has gone wrong.
So what the hon Chief Whip said in our deliberations which is encompassed in the report is that even if both Houses are doing the same thing in oversight, it doesn’t mean that there would be two different types of corrective action. I think, in essence, what was contemplated by the hon Chief Whip and the committee was that we should co-ordinate our oversight function between the committees of the two respective Houses. That isn’t simply to say that we should restrict one House or the other. It is simply to say that we need to be talking to the committees in the other House so that we can both have a sense of the complete picture, fulfil our constitutional obligations in oversight and hold the executive to account where that is required and constitutionally valid.
There is only one other minor point that I wish to mention and that is that section 231 of the Constitution gives the National Council of Provinces oversight in regard to international treaties and agreements. In terms of our internal Rules these are voted on by the provinces. But the issue here is that this is an artificial situation because the provinces are not consulted, nor are they briefed on international treaties or agreements. This, clearly, is somehow a misconception of the role that provinces would play and the role that we would, in fact, play. I think that it’s one area where we should look at our own Rules and see whether that is not something that we can correct so that we can properly exercise our oversight function.
Nkk J N VILAKAZI: Sihlalo, isihloko esikhuluma ngaso namhlanje siqondene nokubaluleka kokwethembeka, ukuba neso lokhozi - iso eliqaphelayo, nokubamba iqhaza emsebenzini esiwenzayo ngobuqotho. UmKhandlu kaZwelonke weziFundazwe ubaluleke kakhulu kuHulumeni omkhulu ngoba uxhumanisa uHulumeni omkhulu wezwe nezifundazwe eziyisishiyagalolunye. Ilungu nelungu elilapha kule Ndlu likhethwe nguhulumeni wesifundazwe ngokulethemba. Uma lethembekile kuyohamba kahle konke ukuxhumana kukaHulumeni nesifundazwe leso nasemisebenzini yonke yomphakathi.
Omunye umsebenzi omkhulu wale Ndlu ukuba neso lokhozi ekubhekeleni uHulumeni ukuthi imali ayikhiphile isebenza ngakho yini ezifundazweni. UmKhandlu kaZwelonke weziFundazwe uyazihambela izifundazwe futhi uba nohlelo olugcwele lokucubungula isimo esidingekayo. Kumanje nje iso elibanzi lomKhandlu kaZwelonke weziFundazwe ukubheka ukuthi ukulwa nendlala nokuthuthukisa imiphakathi kulandelwa kahle yini ngokulandela uhlelo lukaMongameli wezwe. Ngabe kuhanjiswa ngendlela yini? Akukho ukuxhaphazeka kwemali? Bukhona ubuqotho? Kukhona ukwethembeka kule mali esisebenza kuyo, nokunye nokunye?
Kumanje nje umKhandlu kaZwelonke weziFundazwe usuhambele izifundazwe ezimbili eMtata - eMpumalanga Koloni, naseMafikeng - eNyakatho Ntshonalanga. Yilawo mathuba okuxhumanisa umphakathi nale Ndlu ezingeni elithe xaxa. Umphakathi ubeka izidingo zawo emkhandlwini kazwelonke kuphinde futhi kuvele ithuba lokuhambahamba kubonwa intuthuko yomphakathi noma izidingo ezikhona emphakathini nokunye nokunye.
Sibonile uHulumeni ekhipha imali eyinikeza izifundazwe kugcine lapho kungabonakali futhi kungezwakali ukuthi imali ishonephi. Kafishane nje lokho kuyisithombe sokungethembeki emsebenzini umuntu asuke ebekwe kuwo. Angikhulumi lapha ngomuntu osebenzayo noma ovilaphayo nohwiphilita imali esuke ikhishwe uHulumeni. Nalaba abasezingeni eliphezulu bayangena shi obishini ngokuhluleka ukuba neso lokhozi emsebenzini kaHulumeni. Abanalo iso lokhozi bakubhadama kusaqala okungumkhonyovu umthetho ulungise izinto kungaze konakale kakhulu.
Iso elibanzi kudingeka ligxile emthethweni oshayiwe, imali ekhishiwe yezidingo, ukusebenza komthetho ezifundazweni, ukuthi intuthuko ikhona yini nokudingekayo ukuletha intuthuko emphakathini. Konke lokho kudinga umuntu owaziyo umsebenzi, ukuthembeka nobuqotho, ukumela izimo nokulwela uHulumeni kuyo iminyango esifundazweni sonke jikelele kusukela kuhulumeni wesifunda kuze kowasekhaya kanjalo kanjalo. Ngiyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu speech follows.)
[Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, today’s topic is about the importance of honesty, farsightedness and diligence in doing our work. The National Council of Provinces is crucial to the Government because it forms the link between the national Government and the nine provinces. Each and every member who is in this House has been elected by a provincial government because they trust him or her. If he or she is trustworthy the liaison between the Government and that particular province will go smoothly and all community projects run well.
Another major task of this House is to monitor whether the money that is allocated by the Government to provinces is properly spent. The National Council of Provinces visits provinces and it also has a full programme which is aimed at assessing needs. At the moment the main focus of the National Council of Provinces is on scrutinising whether poverty alleviation and community development are properly executed in accordance with the plans of the President. Is everything done accordingly? Is money not being squandered? Is there honesty? Is there trustworthiness regarding the money for which we are responsible, etc?
Up until now, the National Council of Provinces has visited two provinces, ie Umtata in the Eastern Cape and Mafikeng in North West. Those are opportunities for facilitating communication between this House and the community at a higher level. The community puts its needs across to the National Council and the Council is also afforded an opportunity for visits in order to observe community development or assess the needs of that community, etc.
We have observed situations where the Government allocated money to provinces and that money simply disappeared without trace. In short, that paints a picture of dishonesty regarding a task that has been assigned to one. I am not talking here about an employee who is lazy or embezzles public money. Even those who are at higher levels get into deep trouble through their failure to monitor Government projects. Those who have monitoring mechanisms are able to nip corruption in the bud, and then the law takes its course and things get sorted out before it’s too late.
The monitoring function should focus on existing laws, money allocated to cater for needs, the implementation of laws in the provinces, assess whether there is development or not and those things that are needed to facilitate the development of communities. All of that require a person who knows his or her job, who is honest, trustworthy, responsible and looks after the interests of Government and departments throughout a province, from provincial government right down to local government, etc. I thank you.]
Mr T S SETONA: Chairperson, hon members, I think I agree with the hon Vilakazi that one of the key thrusts of our oversight function, beyond legislative and other functions that we are exercising, is to ensure that from time to time we check the extent to which our own executive and other organs of state are performing to uplift the conditions of life of our people in relation to homelessness, hunger, poverty and all other social ills. I think I agree with that.
In that respect, the NCOP as an evolving institution, which is hardly five years old - or is it six? - has actually risen to the challenges by coming up with very innovative mechanisms to begin a very rigorous and systematic contact with the masses of our people dealing with issues that are affecting our people beyond issues of legislation. I think the manner in which we have structured our provincial weeks is a clear pointer in the direction of that innovation and we have been very successful in that particular respect.
It has not been a public relations exercise, in the sense that where we have been able to pick up issues raised by our people and issues that we have observed where we have identified gaps in relation both to our own legislation and to policies, we have been able to come back to this House and have a debate, drawing the attention of the executive to those gaps. And, in most instances, the executive has been very positive in making clear commitments in order to address those gaps. On that note, I think we are on course in terms of accelerating the pace of transformation in our country. It is worth mentioning that the transformation of the Senate into the National Council of Provinces in 1996, as a result of the adoption of the new Constitution, ushered in a completely new regime of the exercise of political power unique to our own country. This uniqueness is marked by, amongst other things, the distinct role of the National Council of Provinces in terms of which it enjoins the three spheres of government under one roof to discuss both legislative and policy matters and any matter that is of national importance affecting the lives of our people.
Over and above outlining structures and systems of political order, our Constitution further espouses values that recognise the diversity of our nation, thus committing the state and its organs not only to recognise these disparities but, more importantly, to work hard for the eradication of these disparities within the limits of the resources available to the country.
The following are the core values of our Constitution: the question of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedom; nonracialism and nonsexism; the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law; and universal adult suffrage, a national common voters’ roll, regular elections and a multiparty system of democratic government to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.
Critical to the exercise of oversight and accountability in the National Council of Provinces is the need to constantly seek to measure the performance of the executive and all other organs of state against these values. We are not just doing it in a vacuum. We are not just asking questions for the sake of asking questions. Our questions and oversight are informed by these fundamental values to ensure that our country moves gradually and steadily to a situation where there will be equality amongst our people; to ensure that all our people live in decent houses and are accorded the dignity and respect that they deserve. Those are the fundamental values that inform our oversight work from time to time.
There is a view, though not openly expressed, that tends to relegate the NCOP to the role of intervention, as the hon Lever has said, in accordance with provisions such as sections 100 and 139 of the Constitution. This view, in the main, presupposes that the role of the NCOP in oversight is limited to those particular areas of interventions and not similar, both in terms of content and weight, to the role that is exercised by the National Assembly, which is our counterpart.
We are saying this afternoon that that view is incorrect, because there is no way that we, as the representatives of our various legislatures in this House, as voices of our local government in the various provinces, can articulate their aspirations and difficulties in this House without understanding their issues. So we cannot limit our interventions to those specific sections of the Constitution which are enabling this House to intervene where national and provincial government, respectively, are intervening in issues of local government. I think we have to make that point quite loud and clear.
As other members have mentioned, there are clear areas where, in my view, we need to improve in terms of the area of oversight, not only as the NCOP but as Parliament as a whole. Obviously, there are various systems and instruments that we use to exercise this oversight. In terms of in-house arrangements we use questions to Ministers, policy review debates and committees, by calling various Government departments and other state agencies to brief the committees. The question is: Is that enough? I argue that it is not enough.
I don’t think we have been able as a House - given our uniqueness, which is defined by our nature of representing specific interests, those interests being the interests of local and provincial government - to have a very structured dynamic and systematic contact with that base, the base of organised local government and that of our own legislatures.
Quite obviously, as I am sure all of you will agree, we go to our provinces when we have to brief them on certain pieces of legislation, and that’s all. We don’t have a structured time when we, as permanent delegates who are representing the provinces in this House, e are able to sit down … [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Dr E A CONROY: Hon Chairperson and colleagues, it would appear that the terms ‘‘oversight’’ and ‘‘accountability’’ in a parliamentary context are somewhat complex and that they need some understanding, and I quote from the consultant’s report under the heading Oversight: The difficult role of Parliament, which states that ‘‘effective and proper oversight and accountability requires of members to fully understand the constitutional justifications and rationale behind accountable government’’.
If this were not the case, why would the Ad Hoc Joint Subcommittee on Parliamentary Oversight and Accountability have appointed consultants to advise them on the subject matter and taken almost four years to produce a final report?
The term ‘‘oversight’’ refers to a variety of aspects of a large number of monitoring and reviewing activities carried out by legislatures in relation to the executive, but it can only be effective if recognised by those in power as being the central organising principle of our Constitution. One can, however, also state what oversight is not. Oversight is definitely not the sole domain of opposition parties, nor is it supposed to be an instrument at the disposal of opposition parties for scoring political points.
To quote the hon Chief Whip of this House:
Oversight is not only about being critical but also about remedying defects … it is about all spheres coming together and starting to ask where the problem is and how to identify it and also how to correct it.
If I can put it in different words: Good oversight will involve parties discussing the existence and nature of a problem or a problematic situation and reaching consensus about it and trying to solve the identified problem in a co-operative way to the advantage of the people who have elected us to the positions we occupy in this House.
The practice of oversight within the National Council of Provinces is performed mainly by select committees and their chairpersons and members. Select committees are therefore the most important oversight mechanisms available to the NCOP, especially when oversight occurs as a result of or is triggered by visits to provinces and nodal points, interaction with the people and public hearings.
Practical examples of oversight on a wider scale were the NCOP’s visits last year to the Eastern Cape and last week to the North West. Such oversight visits will, however, be in vain and a fruitless exercise if that which was seen and heard is not turned into action.
It would appear at times that due to the wide range covered by select committees and the limited number of members, select committees lack the tools to perform effective oversight, which leads one to ask the rhetorical question: Is it a question of too few members with too little time and too much work?
The nature of oversight, however, also heavily depends on the nature of the select committee. In the case of the Select Committee on Finance, oversight is of a financial nature. Its oversight role is to see to it that provinces and municipalities get their fair share in the division of revenue process.
Questions looked into and pondered about are whether the funds are spent in the intended manner and whether the funds reach those parts of the population where they should make a difference and create a better life for all.
This can only be effected by doing oversight in the annual processes leading up to the actual Budget with hearings, also in conjunction with the Financial and Fiscal Commission, held with civil society in the provinces, and briefings to the select committee separately and jointly with the Portfolio Committee on Finance.
I conclude by stating that the NCOP has a definite and vitally important role to play in parliamentary oversight and accountability - also through and by its representatives appointed by the President in the Audit Commission. I thank you. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I have been advised that speakers number 6 and 7 will not be participating in the debate.
Mr T B TAABE: Hon Deputy Chair of Chairs and hon members of the NCOP, thank you very much indeed, hon Deputy Chair of Chairs, for affording me the opportunity this afternoon to address the House on the role and function of oversight and accountability in the National Council of Provinces.
This important and historic debate comes almost eight years after the democratisation of our country, a country delivered by the glorious army of the people, namely the ANC, from a morally repugnant system of apartheid and white supremacist rule.
Since our establishment seven years ago, South Africa still faces enormous challenges to improve the lives of its citizens and to ensure that indeed as a Government we are able to perform effectively and efficiently in delivering services to all our people. This is a responsibility we cannot abrogate as elected public representatives, for we have a direct interest in overseeing the executive in this country.
Clearly our oversight role as an institution should not be understood purely on a literal or technical reading of the Constitution alone, as is often myopically understood by other parties in this Chamber, and should thus be understood in the context of what our actual role as members of this House is, in discharging, without fear, the responsibility of bringing about delivery and social transformation, a task we have meticulously executed as the African National Congress. Our Constitution therefore places a number of expectations on the shoulders of this House in relation to oversight and accountability.
This expectation behoves us to continue in a relentless manner to draw provincial and local experience into the national discourse when the effectiveness of policy implementation is considered. This should therefore enable us to be sensitive and responsive to the conditions and needs of everyone in our country irrespective of race, creed, colour or sexual orientation.
The point must be made that as the NCOP we are strategically placed to facilitate, practically and in a sustained way, the sharing of experiences and ideas among all our provincial legislatures and local government. This should enable us to identify common problems and best practices with the express view and intent to enhance and deepen the capacity of all the spheres of government. In this way we are able as the NCOP to carry out our constitutional mandate on oversight - different from other legislative bodies.
It is therefore important for us to continue to do all that is necessary and within our means to creatively develop mechanisms that ensure closer interaction with our provincial legislatures and indeed with all our people. Some of the hon members did in fact allude to what the NCOP is practically doing, by way of our campaigns in relation to taking Parliament to the people, provincial visits to provinces, our provincial weeks and so forth, to practically ensure that indeed we are able to deepen this interaction between the NCOP and the provincial legislatures, which has become an absolute necessity with all our people.
We should therefore ensure that we have access to the reports which provincial executives present to the legislatures so that we are informed of progress made and challenges experienced in the process of delivering quality services to our people. Equally we must continue to interact with the national executive so that we are in a better position to contribute to ensuring that indeed there is better co-operation between and among all spheres of government.
Much as we accept that in any democracy such as ours there would be different political views and expressions as a central feature of the legislative processes, if executed maturely oversight should contribute to the process of broader societal change. As elected representatives we would therefore be able to ensure that whatever new legislative developments are made should recognise both the successes and failures of past legislation to better manage challenges of present and future legislation.
We must also exercise greater vigilance in the area of policy implementation and be unwavering in our quest to ensure that indeed Government policy remains sensitive and responsive to the needs and concerns of all our people. I thank you, hon Deputy Chair of Chairs. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Deputy Chairperson, members of the National Council of Provinces, I wish to thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I wish to congratulate all the members who participated before me. I think the point has been made and has been driven home. We all of us are beginning to understand the importance of the oversight function and accountability that we all have to undertake. I wouldn’t like to try to describe what oversight and accountability are all about. I think most of you have done that wonderfully and very accurately.
However, I would like to point out that the importance of the oversight function, especially as exercised by members of Parliament, has certain aspects. First, it helps us to ensure that the executive implements the laws in the way required by the legislature and according to the dictates of the Constitution. I think that is a fundamental point that we need to make here.
Secondly, it ensures effective government by ensuring that the executive carries out its mandate, monitoring the implementation of its legislative policies and drawing on the experiences for future law-making. I think that is quite critical. You don’t just make the laws and leave them lying there. You need somebody to monitor the implementation of those particular laws. We all understand that the executive are charged with the work of implementing legislation, and we as members of Parliament are charged with the work of monitoring particularly that implementation.
Thirdly, the oversight function encourages open government, which is also a requirement of our Constitution. This serves to enhance public confidence in that particular government and ensures that a government is close and responsive to the people that it governs. It is precisely because of the oversight function and the monitoring that we carry down to the structures, to the people lower down on the street, that they can begin to understand that they have got a Government that cares about them, that is closer to them, that is open to them and that is really interested in making their lives better, by going down there and looking precisely at what is happening. I think that those are important factors that would count to us especially as members of Parliament, as we carry out our oversight function.
But let me also come to the question that says that at the particular moment it is not very clear in the Constitution nor in our Rules what the oversight function is. We still have to come up with mechanisms that will spell out very clearly what it is that we are expected to do as members of Parliament. However, that does not prevent us from carrying out our oversight function on a day-to-day basis.
Another important fact that I want to mention is that oversight carries with it certain expectations and obligations, which include the identification of aberrations and clear steps to rectify and make amends to alleviate any fault that occurs. I think Mr Lever referred to this earlier on. You see, the important point is that when you discover that there is something wrong in your oversight function, then you don’t leave it like that. The job that we should be awake and alive to is that once we pick up the things that are not right, then we must come here and correct them. Those are things that affect the citizens that have placed you and me in the positions we are in in Parliament today.
Let me just pause a little there and say that we are the most advantaged people. You are the person who has the last word in Parliament and in government. You are a very special person, because you are performing a specific duty as a member of Parliament. The person in the street doesn’t know how we make laws in Parliament. The person in the street depends on you to make these laws on his or her behalf. That is precisely the reason they stood up in 1994 and 1999 and went to the polls. They queued there because they wanted people to make laws in Parliament on their behalf.
At the same time, it is those who people who said that they would like to see this Government deliver, and it is you and I who have to make a point of it that the laws that we are making are implemented to make the lives of our people better. So those people in Mosterloos, where I come from, those people in the rural areas of Bushbuckridge, those citizens in the rural areas of Qunu and those in Mahlabathini, who are not in a position to come here, are looking to you and me and are asking: What are you doing for us? Why are the things going wrong? Why go to Parliament and keep quiet, and not say anything about the things that you observe are not going right?
That is why I want to emphasise the point that the oversight function plays a very, very important role. We cannot see things going wrong on the ground, come here, talk, close the session, go home and pretend that nothing has happened. Our duty is to correct the wrongs that we see happening on a daily basis.
Parliamentary committees, wherever they are, whether in the National Council of Provinces or in the National Assembly, have a constitutional, social and moral obligation to ensure that the policies, legislation and programmes of Government are implemented efficiently to improve the lives of all our people in South Africa. That is a critical point. It is your moral and social obligation as a member of Parliament not to keep quiet if you go down there to the grass-roots level and see that programmes are not being implemented even though we budgeted for them.
How many times have you passed a bridge with a foundation, but with no wall having been built until today? And what have you said about it? Have you been quiet about it or you have raised it? That is part of our job. These are precisely the things that affect the lives of our people on the ground. These are the things that we need to raise and fight for on a daily basis.
Parliament, and especially the National Council of Provinces, plays a very important role in this process because it is entrusted with the responsibility to measure the extent to which departments are keeping to their development objectives, outputs and service delivery. Those are the two main critical points by which you can be in a position to measure the performance of a department.
Let me tell you why you are very important and why you’re very special in terms of playing your role as a member of Parliament. We sit here and approve budgets every year. The President stands at the podium every year and outlines the programmes of the departments for the whole year. The President states precisely what the departments have got to do and what they have got to budget for.
The national Minister of Finance outlines the Budget every year in February and says how much each department has. What is it that we are doing to follow up and measure the output of each Minister’s department in terms of the money it has received to deliver programmes? How many times do we do that? We come back the following year, we have not checked that, and we say that things are not happening on the ground.
We as members of Parliament can play a vital role in terms of financial oversight functions. Not only that, how many of us critically scrutinise the Budget? How many of us really influence the shaping of the Budget? How many of us really study the documents that come from the Treasury? How many of us really seriously look at the departmental budgets, how they are spent, where they show weaknesses and the capacities they need in order for them to deliver those programmes, and state here what needs to be corrected?
These are the things we that we need to do, because if we fall short here, if we don’t do them, people are going to do whatever they want and they are going to get away with murder. We are here, we see these things, we don’t measure people’s output and their outcomes. We simply keep quiet.
Besides that, the fact that the general oversight responsibility of Parliament is not all that clearly articulated does not mean that Parliament, especially the National Council of Provinces, is lacking in this regard. On the contrary, the National Council of Provinces has been very, very creative in responding to this challenge. We are developing our own oversight practice based on particular circumstances in our country. Oversight is therefore a mechanism used by the National Council of Provinces and individual members to ensure that the executive and the provincial and local government departments give feasible explanations for their actions, on policies, administration and budgetary controls. These are the issues we need to look at as members of Parliament. This is critical.
I think it was Mr Setona who referred to the work of the committees in Parliament. I’m just going to deal with one aspect of that work: the reports that we write as committees. When we go on an oversight visit or a provincial week, we come back and produce a report. I don’t care how many pages long that report is. The thing that worries me is what we do with the recommendations that we put in that report. To me, that is vital. Do we stand up in this Chamber and mention them once, and then put that report aside and let it rot on our bookshelves? Do we then go back to that very area the following year, find the very same mistakes, come back here, debate them, shelve the report and come back again the third year, until the term of Parliament has ended and no corrective steps have been taken?
What mechanism do we have in place to say … Is my time up? Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
THE UNILATERAL INTENTION TO DECLARE WAR BY THE USA, BRITAIN AND SPAIN, AND THE IMPLICATION FOR WORLD PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT
(Subject for Discussion)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, Doctor Martin Luther King Jnr stated: Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Indeed, what we have witnessed in the past few weeks was an unusual and extraordinary phenomenon when men and women, young and old, of all shades and colours, creeds and religious persuasions, political beliefs and convictions throughout the world got together and said: Stop the war. This call has not been a call that has been located within the boundaries of our country or our continent, it was a universal call by humankind to say: Stop the war!
We believe that this collective action of millions of our citizens throughout the world inspired the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, to state, on 10 March 2003, the following:
All around the globe, people want to see the Iraqi crisis resolved peacefully. It could cause great human suffering. It may lead to regional instability and economic crisis.
We have also witnessed, just yesterday and a few days before that, the most astounding rebellion in the history of Britain in the House of Commons, where within the Labour Party, we have had resignations by members of their cabinet and divisions in terms of the views and positions of members of the House of Commons in relation to the drastic action that is being contemplated by the British government.
We have also witnessed that an unusually important phenomenon has also emerged - that of the accountability of the executive in responding to the opinions, the pleas and the demands of the people on the ground. This is a phenomenon that we cannot ignore.
We have also witnessed the lobbying by the great powers, America and Britain, in using aid and trade in order to win support for positions that they feel are correct and legitimate. The call by the South African Government and the people of South Africa is: Iraq, comply with the United Nations resolutions! Iraq, disarm! We do not want weapons of mass destruction.
We are neither anti-American nor anti-British nor anti-Spanish. Our appeal is a sincere appeal to say that the inspections should continue. They have yielded active results. The tide has turned in terms of the lack of co- operation, and we should give peace a chance.
As we reflect on this matter, we should remember that the only country that has used atomic or nuclear warfare is America. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are but two illustrations of the devastation and ruin that can be caused to humanity, and the continued suffering in the aftermath of a war. Let us also remember that America constitutes 6% of the population of the world, and yet it spends more than R400 billion - that is half the estimated military budgets of all the countries on this continent - on the production of warfare armaments. That is important.
Let us remember that Iraq has the second largest reservoir of oil in the world. That is an important point to remember. Let us also remember that in Vietnam, America used chemical warfare - thousands and thousands of litres of chemicals - on the people of Vietnam, and as we do so, we must also remember that more than 750 000 people died in Iraq - children, not people
- in the aftermath of the Gulf War.
As we do so, we must remember that the result of the Gulf War in Iraq was that water was contaminated, infrastructure was destroyed. People suffered and continue to suffer. There is malnutrition. There is typhoid. The mortality rate of the children of Iraq and women has increased very significantly.
It is this kind of aftermath, this kind of disaster which prompted Dennis Halliday, a person who served the UN faithfully and loyally in Iraq for a period of 34 years, to resign. It is important to quote what he stated amongst his reasons for his resignation:
I have been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. The policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt.
These were his words, and his resignation was followed by the resignation of somebody who replaced him and who had also served the UN for a period of 30 years.
What is the view of the world in relation to this matter? The Nonaligned Movement has expressed its view that Iraq must disarm. That is the view of all South Africans, I believe, of all shades and opinions. Iraq must disarm and do away with the weapons of mass destruction. Let it not only be Iraq. Let it also be Israel and all the countries in the Middle East. A war is no good. These weapons of mass destruction do not foster peace, but are in fact a catalyst for warfare.
We have also said collectively - that has been the view of the UN and all countries, the European summit and the Franco-African summit - that multilateralism must prevail. We cannot have a situation where we erode the credibility of the UN which was founded on the UN Charter, which in fact represents the co-operation of the diverse nations of this world. That is the appeal.
We believe that America and Britain are quite well-equipped. If you look at the checklist, they have the ships, they have the planes, they have the helicopters, they have the missiles, and the armaments. They have all the relevant equipment necessary in order to initiate war. Yet there is one thing lacking in their inventory: a reason. The reason is lacking. This is why the people of the world are saying that we should give peace a chance.
If we look at the UN resolution, it is to disarm Iraq and to prevent it from possessing weapons of mass destruction. It is not about the removal of the regime. The reason for doing what the inspectors are doing has now disappeared. A new reason has been found: Saddam Hussein must be removed from office.
The position, if I could end, of this Government is that a war would cause serious economic losses to the developing nations, the people of the country, and to the poverty-stricken. It is not the view of this House, I believe, that we should support a regime such as that of Saddam Hussein, but that we should ask for peace and to say: Give peace a chance, and let us ensure that we support the initiatives of the UN Security Council and promote multilateralism. If not, we are faced with war. [Applause.]
Mr N M RAJU: Hon Chair, hon fellow South Africans, now I know what people mean when they say, ``Great minds think alike’’. Believe it or not, my speech also begins with a reference to one of the world’s greatest icons and apostles of international peace and human rights, Dr Martin Luther King, who spoke about the dilemma and the challenge that leaders of the world have to face in times of crisis.
We are on the threshold of a terrible war sponsored by the United States of America, under the presidency of George W Bush, against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It is almost a fait accompli. That we have reached this sorry pass is due in no small measure to the failure of multilateralism. The UN Security Council, which today is divided on the issue, must take a careful look at itself. When, after the Gulf War, the UN passed no less than 16 resolutions on Iraq, calling for the dismantling of its war machinery, it failed to execute, once and for all, the coup de grâce that would have given Saddam Hussein his comeuppance.
Instead, the council adopted a lukewarm attitude, and failed the challenge of asserting itself as a world monitor of war and peace. The UN Security Council today is unanimous about the danger posed by Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction, but is divided about how to deal with them.
For 12 years, it adopted an indifferent posture towards the recalcitrant Iraq. [Interjections.] I would expect people to make relevant, useful and intelligent interjections. [Laughter.] We must note that the UN was born of a strong determination to ensure that never again would nation states resort to arms to settle disputes. The name of the game was dialogue and discourse across the discussion tables but, alas, the weakness of the human condition prevails.
President George W Bush, with the support of Britain’s Tony Blair, with Spain and Australia behind them, has declared his intentions unequivocally to commence attacks on Iraq at 3 am tomorrow. [Interjections.] France, Russia, Germany and China, and virtually the rest of the world, including South Africa, are not eager to support the war effort. There are antiwar dissidents within America and Great Britain, but the warmongers remain unmoved.
The hon Chief Whip referred to the detonation of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, when a shocked world realised what a potent force the atomic bomb was when it was unleashed on an unsuspecting world. At that time, there was a call to war, and there was a fight for ideological supremacy. Not today. Saddam Hussein and George W Bush are equally culpable with regard to this sorry state of affairs. Both must bear the responsibility for the failure of multilateralism. [Interjections.] Neither Saddam Houssein nor George Bush comes out smelling of roses. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): I now know that when my mike is switched off, it means my time is up. I didn’t know that. I thought somebody was playing with the mike. [Laughter.]
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, the New NP still believes, with many others, that the USA should not attack Iraq unilaterally. The New NP still believes that war is not an appropriate mechanism to solve international disputes. Unfortunately, our beliefs are not relevant at this point in time. The USA is going to attack Iraq unilaterally.
The failure of the UN to take effective punitive measures against Iraq for having thus far transgressed 12 UN resolutions is partly to blame for this sorry state of affairs. Unfortunately, the USA has reached a point of no return. Only one man can stop an attack on Iraq, and that is not George W. Bush. The fact is that if they back down now, it will be interpreted by rogue states and organisations such as North Korea and Al-Qaeda as a sign of weakness. It will create a perception that the only superpower in the world is nothing more than a papertiger, with devastating consequences for the safety of the free world.
The only man that can stop the war now within the next 24 hours is Saddam Hussein. If he went into exile, as proposed not only by George W Bush, but also by prominent leaders of the Gulf states, that attack will be called off, because it is believed that Iraq will then adhere to the UN resolutions. [Interjections.]
The fate of Iraq and its people is therefore entirely in the hands of Saddam Hussein. It is unthinkable that a head of state could be prepared to sacrifice a whole nation merely to hang on to … [Interjections.]
Mr T B TAABE: Chair, I would like to know whether the hon member Mr Van Niekerk will take a question.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Chairperson, I would like to take the question. I just want to finish my argument. If he still wants to ask a question, he may do so, with pleasure. [Interjections.]
I want to repeat, the question whether the US should attack Iraq in order to disarm them is no longer relevant. The US will attack Iraq.
The only relevant remaining question is, and this is important: What will South Africa’s position be when the US attacks Iraq with or without UN consent? [Interjections.] The only sensible thing for South Africa to do would be to stay neutral at all times. If we want to sign our death warrant economically, then we must openly come out on the side of Iraq. [Interjections.]
In the field of international diplomacy … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order, hon members. Give Mr Van Niekerk time to put his point. Mr Van Niekerk, continue.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: In the field of international diplomacy, there are no such things as friends, only interests. It will not be in South Africa’s national interest to side with Iraq in case of a war between Iraq and the US. The best option for South Africa would be to stay neutral at all times when the US unilaterally attacks Iraq.
It seems, however, as if a position of neutrality is not self-evident, as we hear from the reaction here. Iraq is thousands of kilometres away from South Africa, and America’s wars should not automatically become South Africa’s wars. The US however remains the only superpower in the world and it would be plain foolish to side with an opponent of theirs. [Interjections.] Humanitarian aid to the civilians …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order, order, hon Van Niekerk.
Ms J L KGOALI: Would the hon member take a question?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Hon Van Niekerk, would you like to take a question? Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: Mr Chairperson, I will take the question. I have one paragraph left. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! Hon Windvoël?
Mr V V Z WINDVOëL: Chairperson, I want to know whether Mr Van Niekerk would have agreed if the US had said that Mr De Klerk had to go into exile?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): I don’t know whether he will take that question. You didn’t ask him first whether he would take a question! [Interjections.] Continue, hon Van Niekerk.
Mr A E VAN NIEKERK: It’s a pity that people don’t really listen. They just hear sounds, and they react to sounds! [Interjections.]
I said humanitarian aid to the civilian population of Iraq, who will become the main victims of war, is the right thing to do, and should be encouraged. Support for this regime, however, would be a fatal diplomatic blunder to the detriment of South Africa’s national interest. The Chief Whip started off by saying that he is not for or against America or Iraq. He wanted to give peace a chance, and I agree. But then he lashed out against America, and we have the reaction here of the many colleagues lashing out against America. [Interjections.] We must be very careful. The time has come for the South African Government to say in no uncertain terms what South Africa’s position is on the US attack. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! Your time has expired, hon member. [Interjections.] No, his time has expired. [Laughter.]
Mr K D S DURR: Chairperson, I think it’s unfair that hon members are allowed to take that hon member’s time and he not be compensated. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! Order! You are not correct, Mr Durr. We have not taken any minutes from Mr Van Niekerk’s time. I am in control of time here. I will never rob any member of time.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I just wanted to enquire whether there was a coalition in the making between Mr Durr and Mr Van Niekerk on this issue.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Maybe he can take that up. Hon Durr?
Mr K D S DURR: Thank you, Chairman. The clock starts now.
President Bush is subjected to abuse which is reminiscent of the 1930s, when Winston Churchill was vilified as a warmonger when he warned of the dangers posed by Nazi Germany. Blair has had the same problem today. But it is Saddam Hussein, not President Bush, who is in flagrant defiance of the UN Security Council resolutions and has been for the past 12 years. He has persistently flouted all attempts and ignored all instructions of the Security Council to give up his weapons of mass destruction.
If Saddam Hussein complied fully with the letter and spirit of the UN instructions, it would not have been necessary to force him to do so now. The real issue is not whether President Bush or Mr Blair or anybody else is acting outside the framework of the UN, but whether the Security Council itself condones further flagrant Iraqi defiance. By doing so, the UN becomes as impotent as the old League of Nations, and terrorism will flourish worldwide. It will be the end of the development of our continent. Our continent will not develop while the world is focused upon these matters or while world terrorism flourishes. Only world peace and expanding markets will make it possible for our country and our continent to develop. It is in our interests that we do this. [Interjections.]
We in this House need to ask ourselves only one question. We are elected by the South African people to serve their best interests. We are not elected to serve Iraq’s, Bush’s, Blair’s or anybody else’s interests. [Interjections.] You put it so well yourself, Mr Chairman, in the previous debate. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! Order!
Mr K D S DURR: [Inaudible.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! Hon Moatshe? Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson, I just wanted to ask the hon member whether he will be able to take a question.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Hon Durr, will you take a question? He says he won’t take a question. Continue, hon Durr.
Mr K D S DURR: What is in our best interests? We have sought, quite properly, to work fully within the UN and to help it. Our President, I think, has done his very best to put the necessary pressure upon Iraq to disarm. I agree with the member who spoke before me. We must not take sides. We must remain neutral and nonaligned. Any other action is meaningless and will be counterproductive and will expose faultlines and divisions in South African society.
The war will soon be over. [Interjections.] These things will pass and prosperity will return. We must remember that we are here to act in South Africa’s best interests. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! Give the hon member a chance, please. Mr K D S DURR: It’s the victor who writes the history books. South Africa has missed the great booms of the 1980s and the 1990s because we have paralysed ourselves with politics. We must not let politics pollute the future of this country any longer. We must be part of the future and not sideline ourselves by putting South Africa on the wrong side of history, not to be seen as supporting or abetting …
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! Order! Hon Moatshe?
Mr K D S DURR: [Inaudible.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order, hon Durr! Hon Moatshe?
Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson, there is no neutrality as far as the truth is concerned. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Hon Moatshe, you’re not yet on the platform. Hon Durr, you have half a minute to finish your speech.
Mr K D S DURR: In the past we saw world trade expand when the Royal Navy cleared the seas of piracy so that world trade could prosper. In the 1970s we saw air piracy, when the international action led by the Americans and other states had to rid the world of air piracy. We now have the scourge of terrorism. Terrorism threatens globalisation, peace and the development of this continent, and it takes the focus off the great development actions that are necessary for our continent, our people and our nation. We have to bring that focus back and put this country on the side of the angels and develop our continent. I thank you.
Mr J O TLHAGALE: Chairperson and hon members of this House, whatever the circumstances and reasons may be, war is devastating and its implications and consequences far exceed its justifications over a long period of time thereafter. The UCDP believes that war is not an appropriate mechanism to solve international problems and disputes.
There is no certainty of what exactly the impending war is all about. The most common reason given is the removal of the weapons of mass destruction that the UN inspectors are investigating. However, it would appear that the delayed but inevitable result of the September 11 attacks of two years ago may be the most important reason behind the war.
Another clear factor that may be intolerable to the US is that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who rules his people with violence. However, we maintain that whatever the reason may be, the ultimate solution thereof is through dialogue and negotiations in appropriate forums.[ Applause.]
A war of this magnitude is going to destabilise world peace and development. It is going to bring about human suffering and the loss of human lives and material goods and is going to dismantle all developmental initiatives set up in the developing countries. The UCDP does not support war. I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Mr R M NYAKANE: Chairperson, I rise here to share the sentiments of those who condemn in the strongest terms the move by the US to wage war against Iraq. President Bush is deliberately and intentionally violating international law by waging an illegal war against Iraq, a small nation with a population which is half the size of our own in South Africa.
The action by the US puts the UN in a predicament. The world is watching this scenario with mixed feelings, surprise and questions - questions such as: Does the UN have powers to give and enforce orders on a member state that interferes in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states? A bad precedent has been created. What will prevent Britain and Spain from engaging in the same acts of aggression should circumstances permit?
America has been vocal about the replacement of Saddam Hussein’s regime, but has been silent on one aspect, which is the kind and type of regime that will succeed Saddam Hussein. If America succeeds in removing Saddam Hussein by force or by unilateral means, what will prevent it from dictating the nature of the regime and selecting the leader of their choice for that country? This is a dictatorship in its strongest terms.
Mangope did it in the former homelands. As one homeland leader once said, ``Mangope did it. Why can’t I did it?’’ Following this lyric, if America did it, what is to prevent Britain and Spain from doing it too, should circumstances permit? They are aligning themselves with America. There is no doubt that Iraq will sustain severe haemorrhaging after this war. This will impact negatively on neighbouring countries on social, economic and other grounds. Iraq will definitely need billions to reconstruct itself. We will pay a heavy price for the crude oil and petrol to enable Iraq to raise funds for its reconstruction.
Lastly, one is in no way suggesting that Saddam Hussein is without mistakes. President Bush also does not have a strong case. But the bottom line is that engagement of military force is barbaric and hostile, and acceptable means should be found to solve the problems. After all, an Englishman argues that there are many ways to kill a cat. [Applause.]
Ms N C KONDLO: Chairperson, before I proceed with my speech, I just want to correct two things that have been said by the New NP’s hon Van Niekerk and the ACDP’s hon member Durr. Maybe the fact that their inputs are similar reflects their historical backgrounds. This is especially because, when they were in power, they had no respect for human rights. No wonder they are able to say such horrible things about human lives. They say this because they have no respect for human lives. They have reminded us of the history that we come from. It is probably a pity that they are benefiting from the democracy that we fought for.
I also wish to remind the hon member Van Niekerk that when he refers to Saddam Hussein’s violation of UN resolutions, he has forgotten, perhaps deliberately, how Israel has consistently violated UN Resolution 69 but continues to receive billions of dollars from America.
Let me then deal with the issues that the ANC has mandated me to debate upon.
Izenzo zeMelika ngokuqhubela phambili ngomlo okanye imfazwe ne-Iraq zisixelela izinto ezimbini ngayo. Okokuqala, kukuba iMelika isoloko ifuna, yona njengalizwe, ithabathele amanye amazwe isigqibo. Okwesibini, ukusengela phantsi imizamo yeentetho ezikhoyo kwihlabathi phakathi kwezizwe ngokuphathelele kule mfazwe, ndawonye nokungayiboneli ntweni intlangano yeZizwe eziManyeneyo khon’ ukuze kuviwe ngayo, kwenziwe intando yayo, indelelo ukutsho oko. Okwesithathu, le ndelelo nentswela mbeko yeMelika kwiZizwe eziManyeneyo yenza ukuba ikamva leZizwe eziManyeneyo libe mfiliba, ngakumbi xa kufanele iphathe imicimbi yabantu behlabathi ngeenjongo zokuqinisa imvano, ukuqinisekisa uxolo ehlabathini kunye nenkqubela phambili yoluntu kwihlabathi liphela. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[The actions of the US to proceed with the fight or war against Iraq tell us two things about the US: that it, firstly, always wants to take decisions, as a country, on behalf of other countries; secondly, that there is undermining of existing peace initiatives amongst nations in the world with regard to this war, together with disregarding the UN so that the US calls the shots and things get done the way it likes, meaning contempt. Thirdly, this contempt and disrespectfulness of America towards the UN makes the future of the UN bleak, especially with regard to dealing with matters of the world community with a view to strengthening relations, ensuring that there’s peace in the world and there’s development in the entire world community.]
To us this war will fundamentally reverse the struggle for the transformation and democratisation of the UN and all other multilateral institutions.
Xa sijonga le mfazwe nendlela eza ngayo iMelika ngokunyanzelisa, iyasibonisa iMelika okokukuba yintoni eyona ngxaki yayo. Siyazi okokuba ezoqoqosho eMelika zikhe zathanda ukugingxagingxa nokuba yekeyeke mva nje. Loo nto ke ibonakalisa okokuba iMelika, njenge lizwe lobungxowankulu nanjengabo bonke oongxowankulu, yenza nantoni ezakuqinisekisa into yokuba ingeniso abanayo yeyokuqinisekisa ubungxowankulu bayo. Ke ilizwe elifana neMelika xa lifuna ukuqinisekisa ukulawula ubungxowankulu balo lingenza nantoni na. Kungaphalala igazi, abantu bangaphulukana nobomi babo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[If we look at the war and its approach of coercing, America is showing us what its actual problem is. We know that, at some stage, the economy of America was shaky and has slackened lately. That shows that America, as a capitalist country and like all capitalists, does anything that will ensure that the income they have entrenches its capitalism. So when a country like America wants to entrench its capitalist control, it can do anything. Blood can be shed, people can lose their lives.]
It is in the nature of any capitalist country or society to live for any gains, irrespective of how humankind suffers.
Masikhumbule kwakhona malungu eNdlu into yokuba loo nto ithi sivile kwiingxelo ebezikhona kutsha nje into yokuba iMelika sele iplanile neenkampani ezizakuthi xa sele iphelile imfazwe zihambe ziye kungena e- Iraq, ziye kuncedisa ekwakheni isizwe sase-Iraq. Ezinye zezo nkampani ziinkampani ze-oli zaseMelika. Iyasixelela ke loo nto okokuba uyintoni umdla weMelika e-Iraq. Ayina nto yakwenza nokuba ifuna ukumfundisa isifundo uSaddam Hussein nokuba makuphele izixhobo zokubulala isininzi, inomdla kula oli kuba kaloku iza kuphakamisa umgangatho wayo kwezoqoqosho. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Again, let us also remember, members of this House, that that says to us what we heard in recent reports, that the US has already planned with companies that will go into Iraq, after the war, to help build the Iraqi nation. Some of those companies are America’s oil companies. That tells us, then, what it is that is America’s interest in Iraq. It has nothing to do with wanting to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson, to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. It is interested in that oil because it will raise the level of its economy.]
Again, the Afghanistan experience indicated that even though America had promised to rebuild it, on the contrary, this has never seen the light of day. Instead, the people of Afghanistan are still struggling as we speak. There are even reports of malnutrition following the US pursuit of the Taliban. If indeed the Americans’ interest is to protect human rights, why is it that the Palestinian people are still struggling for their freedom from Israel?
Le mfazwe ke, mhlali-ngaphambili, inemiphumela emibi, engathandekiyo nengafunekiyo kukhuseleko loluntu jikelele. Le nto icace mhlophe ngamazwi athethwe ngummi wase-Iraq othe xa ethetha, ndiyamcaphula: (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[This war, Chairperson, has ugly results that we don’t want and that are not needed for the safety of the entire society. This is abundantly clear in the words of an Iraqi citizen who said, and I quote, as follows:]
The dangers of invasion and military occupation by the US, Britain and their allies could only bring further death and destruction. We have already endured terrible suffering as a result of two wars waged by dictatorial rulers, the Iraq-Iran war between 1980 and 1988 and the Gulf War, in addition to the devastating consequences of years of economic sanctions.
This could depict the human suffering the people of Iraq will endure if the war is waged.
Xa ndiza kuhlala phantsi ke Sihlalo, i-ANC … [As I am about to take my seat, Chairperson, the ANC …]
… says no to war and yes to peace. Let us intensify our antiwar mobilisation in solidarity with the people of Iraq. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The Council adjourned at 17:15. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS ANNOUNCEMENTS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
- Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism:
(1) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 18 March 2003 in terms of
Joint Rule 161, classified the following Bill as a money Bill:
(i) Pensions (Supplementary) Bill [B 11 - 2003] (National
Assembly - sec 77).
- Introduction of Bills:
(1) The Minister of Finance:
(i) Food Relief Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 16 - 2003]
(National Assembly - sec 77).
(ii) Gold and Foreign Exchange Control Contingency Reserve
Account Defrayal Bill [B 17 - 2003] (National Assembly -
sec 77).
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Finance of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160, on 19 March 2003.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of the Bills may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) within three parliamentary working days.
(2) The Minister of Defence:
(i) Armaments Corporation of South Africa, Limited Bill [B 18
- 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75) [Explanatory summary of
Bill and prior notice of its introduction published in
Government Gazette No 25004 of 4 March 2003.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Defence of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160, on 20 March 2003.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of the Bill may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) within three parliamentary working days.
- Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159:
(1) Armaments Corporation of South Africa, Limited Bill, 2003,
submitted by the Minister of Defence on 10 March 2003. Referred to
the Portfolio Committee on Defence and the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs.
National Council of Provinces:
- Membership of Select and House Committees:
The following changes have been made to the membership of Committees,
viz:
Economic and Foreign Affairs:
Appointed: Tolo, B J.
- Referrals to committees of tabled papers:
(1) The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Social Services:
Strategic Plan of the Department of Social Development for 2003-
2006 [RP 28-2003].
(2) The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Public Services:
Report and Financial Statements of the People's Housing
Partnership Trust for 2000-2001.
(3) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Land and Environmental Affairs:
(a) Government Notice No 193 published in Government Gazette
No 24363 dated 7 February 2003: Extension of time for general
authorisation in terms of section 36 of the National Water
Act, 1998 (Act No 36 of 1998).
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the Perishable Products
Export Control Board for the year ended 31 December 2001.
(4) The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Economic and Foreign Affairs for consideration and report:
(a) Southern African Development Community Protocol on
Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation, tabled in terms
of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum on the Protocol.
TABLINGS:
National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Chairperson:
Correspondence from the Office of the MEC for Development, Local
Government and Housing, (North West) in terms of section 106(3) of the
Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act No 32 of 2000).
Referred to the Select Committee on Local Government and
Administration.
Copies of the correspondence are available from the Office of Clerk of
the Papers.