National Assembly - 11 February 2004
WEDNESDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2004 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:02.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS
(Resumption of Debate on Subject for Discussion)
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Madam Speaker, hon members, the day before yesterday the hon Annelizé van Wyk participated in the debate on the state of the nation address. In her thoughtful and challenging contribution she asked: Who are you and what are you going to do?
In this regard she said: ``In a political context, there are those with whom referring to the past is very unpopular. They would rather ignore it or prefer to act as if South Africa has no past’’.
Responding to some remark made by a member of the House, she said: ``I have dealt with my own past’’. [Applause.] In other words, she has not treated her past as something to which there should be no reference. She has not elected to ignore either her individual past or her own role in fashioning our country’s past.
With her permission, let me hon members something about the hon Annelizé van Wyk’s past, the past she has dealt with and not ignored.
In a sense we can say she was born into the apartheid system. She grew up in Pretoria, attended the University of Potchefstroom and came back to work in Pretoria on completion of her studies. Her father worked at Correctional Services. Obviously a trusted member of these services, as NCO he drove the vehicle which transported Nelson Mandela from Pretoria to Cape Town on his way to his incarceration on Robben Island. By the time he retired, he had risen to the rank of general.
Throughout her school years, Annelizé lived within the narrow and defining confines of a prison precinct. On completion of her university studies, she worked for Military Intelligence. Later she worked at the state institution, the Human Sciences Research Council.
When she went into politics, naturally she chose the National Party as her political home. [Interjections.] She worked as a National Party activist in the 1987 and 1989 elections in the then Transvaal, and she served on the Transvaal Information Committee of the National Party during the 1992 referendum. From 1994 she served as a New NP member of the Gauteng legislature, resigning in 1997 to join Roelf Meyer in helping to form the UDM. She joined the ANC last year. [Applause.] By any standard, especially in the context of present-day South Africa, this is not a comfortable past, intimately linked as it is to the apartheid security services and the NP during its days as the party of apartheid.
It cannot be a comfortable past, given that some of those who suffered at the hands of the apartheid forces of repression, of which the hon Annelizé van Wyk and her father had been members, are with us here in this House and everywhere else where she may go, doing her work as a member of her political organisation and a member of the National Assembly.
Equally, it surely required great courage, honesty and personal integrity for her to allow us to speak openly about her past and herself wrestling with the demons of her past so that she can live at peace with the present. [Applause.]
For my part, I would like to convey my deepest respect to her and humble appreciation of the example she has set. [Applause.] I am not certain that if I were in her position, I would have had the courage and honesty she has shown. To her, for the example she has set and the leadership she has provided, I would like to extend my sincere thanks. [Applause.]
I know, and many of us know, that there are others in our country who have failed to show the courage and honesty of an Annelizé van Wyk. These are the people she said find reference to their past unacceptable, who prefer to act as if South Africa has no past.
The January 30-February 5, 2004 edition of Engineering News carries an open letter to the President written by the editor, Martin Creamer. After commenting on the legacy of apartheid we inherited, he wrote:
This is a legacy that cannot be swept away overnight. Bad memories will linger. We should, therefore, thank the likes of Bishop Desmond Tutu, who led the Truth and Reconciliation Commission process in a way that did not allow those memories to fester. Instead, he and the other commissioners created the possibility for the emergence of a common consciousness of past pains. This process will help us, black and white, in tackling the challenges of the future with a better sense of history. If genuinely internalised, this memory will ensure a sense of common purpose shaped by a deep desire to redress past ills.
Annelizé van Wyk asked the questions: Who are you and what are you going to
do? Martin Creamer has responded in part by saying that we should cultivate
a common consciousness of past pains''. He has said that a shared memory
and a shared and better sense of our history will ensure a sense of
common purpose shaped by a deep desire to redress past ills’’.
Martin Creamer went on to say:
Much has been achieved in the first decade of freedom … However, the last ten years also have to be viewed simply as a good start in building true racial, social and economic liberation. Much still has to be done. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, we are merely at the end of the beginning. Seriously challenges still confront us and we are going to require skill, effort and resolve to overcome them. The number one challenge, as we see it, relates to the scourge of poverty and unemployment … While we have no doubt about the Government’s serious intention to confront this challenge, we do feel that, at times, the required capacity [urgently] to meet these demands [relating to the eradication of poverty] has not been put in place.
It is exactly because we are merely at the end of the beginning'', with
much that must still be done, to arrive at true racial, social and
economic liberation’’, that Annelizé asked the questions: Who are you and
what are you going to do? Many of the hon members who participated in the
debate answered these questions as their circumstances and consciences
dictated.
Some said that they were the best representatives and guardians of democracy in our country. Accordingly, their answer to the question ``what are you going to do?’’ has been that their task is to gain in strength, the better to be able to play their role as the best representatives and guardians of democracy in our country and beyond.
They have argued that the very definition of democracy centres specifically on the concept and practice of a strong and effective opposition, made particularly important in our country by what they see as an imminent threat of the emergence of a one-party dictatorship.
I would like to suggest that as democrats we should accept these answers as deeply felt and honestly stated. We may very well contest the correctness of the self-definition by some as the rightful democratic watchdogs over the rest of us. But we must surely accept that we have neither the right nor the power to stop these claiming the role they attribute to themselves, however much we might think that what they say about themselves merely signifies that the wish is father to the thought.
Yet others have said that they are the best representatives and guardians of Afrikaner interests specifically, and white interests in general. In their interventions they specified the matters of concern to them, ranging from affirmative action to issues of language, religion, schools and crime, especially against white farmers. In this context, the hon Cassie Aucamp said: ``There is a problem with your concept of the one nation … which one?’’
The hon Aucamp raised an interesting conceptual problem when he said:
Yes, the ANC also preaches diversity, but the ANC model for ``diversity’’ is that every institution, every organisation, should reflect the demographics of the country. The result: every institution looks the same. Every school becomes a parallel-medium school. There is no diversity.
I believe that it would have been very instructive if, during a debate that would hopefully focus on assessing the work of a decade and project into the next, we had given ourselves time to discuss this kind of issue. But it did seem to me that some inside and outside this House sought to focus exclusively on the trees and refused to see the forest.
Thus we avoided dealing with the important questions implicit in what the hon Aucamp said, namely: What do we mean when we speak of a nonracial and nonsexist society and what does the ``equality clause’’ in our Constitution intend that we should do with our country!
The hon Tony Leon found what we must presume he thought was a clever answer to these questions when he said:
The truth is that we must distinguish between two nations. Not a black and a white nation. Rather, we are faced with the South African dream on the one hand, and the South African reality on the other.
The hon Cassie Aucamp said his party, National Action, was ``not a mere uncle in the political business for Afrikaners’’, while the hon Pieter Mulder made it clear that the FF-Plus spoke for the Afrikaners when, for instance, he said:
As Afrikaners, we fought and won that fight [against the language policies of Lord Milner] and will do it again … It must be clear why Afrikaners see new Lord Milners in South Africa and a repeat of their history, struggling against a colonial power.
Not to be outdone, the hon Tertius Delport also spoke for the DA to affirm the special interest of his party in the welfare of the Afrikaners in particular and the whites in general, as did the hon Koos van der Merwe on behalf of the IFP.
But once again, with regard to those who see themselves as the best representatives and guardians of Afrikaner interest in particular and white interests in general, we cannot contest the right of these hon members and their political organisations to answer the questions ``who are you and what will you do?’’ as their circumstances and consciences dictate. They, too, have a democratic right to decide for themselves who they are and what their role will be.
Indeed, in today’s Business Day Steven Friedman argues the point that ``there are few democracies in which identities do not play a major role in how many people vote’’. He says:
If our citizens are driven by identity, we need to recognise that people
will be concerned not only about whether democratic government
delivers'' to them but also about whether it seems to care about them,
to treat them with dignity and respect. And so we need to be as concerned
about whether everyone feels included as about Governmentdelivering’’.
We need to recognise people as citizens whose need for dignity and
respect is as great as that for Government services. Democracy can work
if voters vote who they are, not what they want - as long as we conduct
politics in a way which recognises that and builds on it, as long as we
accept who are voters are and leave it to Henry Higgins, the character
depicted by Bernard Shaw, to fail at trying to turn them into what they
are not.
These correct observations do not seek to deny the importance of ``delivery’’ in its narrower sense. In this regard, we must note the consensus that seems to have emerged during the debate concerning many of the challenges our country faces.
This encompassed issues of poverty and unemployment, crime, health, including the matter of HIV and Aids, education and training, economic growth and development, housing, corruption, moral regeneration and so on. Of course, matters relating to the rest of the world were also raised. These relate to the challenges of African renewal, including Zimbabwe, peace in the Middle East, international terrorism and issues of multilateralism versus unilateralism.
With regard to the domestic issues, I would like to venture the opinion that what many of us said, including the Government, is that during our first decade of democracy we did not succeed in eradicating the legacy of colonialism and apartheid. Or, to put this in Martin Creamer’s words:
The last ten years also have to be viewed simply as a good start in building true racial, social and economic liberation. Much still has to be done … We are merely at the end of the beginning.
I believe that it bodes well for our country that we seem to have reached this level of consensus about the challenges we face. Undoubtedly and quite naturally, our views will differ as to what should be done to respond to these challenges. The forthcoming elections will provide our people with an opportunity to decide which of the various party responses to these challenges they consider the most credible and which among our various parties they consider the most dependable, as our country continues the struggle to eradicate the legacy of centuries of racism and apartheid. Those who hold the view that the situation in our country is worse today than it was 10 years ago will have the opportunity to convince the people that this assertion is in fact true. In this regard, the hon Tony Leon said:
… the South African reality is that for millions of our fellow citizens life is no better now than it was in 1994 … In spite of political freedom, life is actually worse.
The hon Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi echoed this sentiment when he said:
… poverty in rural areas is today worse than before 1994, when we took over the running of this country.
Others, such as the hon Bantu Holomisa of the UDM and P H K Ditshetelo of the UCDP, will also have the possibility to convince the people about their rather strange economic views, in terms of which the successful interventions to correct the disastrous macroeconomic imbalances inherited from the apartheid years are themselves the very cause of the perpetuation of the socioeconomic inequities we also inherited from the past. [Applause.]
But having developed some consensus, and not necessarily unanimity, about the core challenges our country faces, we will still have to return to the questions that the hon Annelizé van Wyk posed: Who are you and what are you going to do?
We will still have to respond to Martin Creamer, to say whether we agree
with him that, despite our partisan political differences, we need to share
a common consciousness of past pains'', whether we agree thata [shared
and] better sense of [our] history’’ would help all of us, black and white,
to develop ``a sense of common purpose shaped by a deep desire to redress
past ills’’. Our responses to these propositions will turn on how we answer
the questions of who we are and what we are going to do.
The hon Chief Whip of the Majority Party, Nkosinathi Nhleko, said: More and more people of South Africa are progressively uniting in a people’s contract to accelerate the process of eradicating the apartheid legacy, [which] they have together identified … as their common enemy.
The hon Renier Schoeman said:
You correctly work on the premise, Mr President, that in unity lies strength … and that the extent of the challenges requires that unity and strength for a collective effort to overcome them.
The hon Musa Zondi said:
The IFP is immensely proud to have played a significant role in the reconciliation process and in the nation-building project since 1994, under the leadership of Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi. We did not stand on the sidelines. We were not afraid to become involved. Whilst the IFP participated in the national Government to advance nation-building and reconciliation, the ruling party’s magnanimity in allowing the IFP to contribute to the nation’s governance was, I believe, unprecedented … The road to national unity is a long journey. We may not even complete it in our lifetimes, but we have made a beginning.
The hon Ismail Vadi invited us to ``listen to the voices of ordinary South Africans, who go about their daily lives building our nation’’.
The hon Miss Rajbally said:
Greater achievement depends on us all and whether we really want to see South Africa improve, for if we do, we will unite ourselves in doing so, for together we are a stronger nation.
To return to what Nelson Mandela said 10 years ago, which we quoted last Friday:
And so we must, constrained by and yet regardless of the accumulated effect of our historical burdens, seize the time to define for ourselves what we want to make of our shared destiny.
On Friday, speaking on behalf of the Government and not the ANC, I pointed out some of our country’s principal achievements as we have worked to define for ourselves what we want to make of our shared destiny.
I reported on the Government’s perspectives about what we will need to do during our second decade of liberation to move further forward towards the realisation of the goal of building a people-centred society.
In this regard, I must repeat that during this past decade we have put in place the whole range of critical policies that must enable us successfully to confront the challenges many of us identified during the debate. It would indeed have been a signal failure on our part if, in 10 years, we had failed to produce the policies that we need to move our country from its apartheid past to the prosperous nonracial and nonsexist democracy visualised in our Constitution. And I am certain that this has not been one of our failures.
Nelson Mandela was released from prison 14 years ago today. Since then, as Martin Creamer said, ``much has been achieved in the first decade of democracy’’.
In this context, we rejoice with those of our people who today will be returning to their beloved District Six here in Cape Town. [Applause.] Among them are Mr Dan Ndzabela, who is 82 years old and was removed from District Six in 1959, as well as Ebrahim Murat, who is 83 years old and was removed from his home in 1967.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to draw our attention to the achievements of two young South African students.
The first is a Grade 11 student at Fezeka Senior Secondary School in Gugulethu who won the Africa leg of a worldwide essay competition ``Red Rover goes to Mars’’. She will shortly leave our shores, as one of the hon members said, to represent Africa, joining 15 students from other continents, as student astronauts at NASA in the United States. [Applause.] May I acknowledge Nomathemba Kontyo, a very special visitor in our gallery today. She is sitting up there. [Applause.]
May I, on behalf of the Government and all South Africans, extend my congratulations to Nomathemba for her wonderful achievement. We have no doubt that she will do our country and continent proud.
Madam Speaker, hon members, I also want to take the opportunity to mention a young student from Bushbuckridge in Limpopo who has become, at the age of 14, the youngest person to have registered at Unisa. [Applause.] Sanelisiwe Sambo’s evident special abilities and intelligence were recognised by her school in Hazyview and her school career was allowed to be accelerated.
May I therefore take the opportunity to congratulate her on her achievement and wish her well in her studies as a Bachelor of Commerce student. [Applause.]
What these happy instances show is that we are indeed moving forward towards the achievement of true racial, social and economic liberation, as Martin Creamer put it.
I must also say that none of us could have avoided being moved by what the hon Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi said when he pointed out his own able contribution to the process of national reconciliation in our country, noting correctly that if we have failed, it will not be because we have not tried. I am certain that all of us agree with him that ``the really new South Africa must be built with the commitment and sacrifices of all, to make it become a decent and prosperous place for all’’.
I believe that all of us should be proud that history has given us the possibility to contribute to this historic outcome.
I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The House adjourned at 14:29. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- Assent by President in respect of Bills
(1) Environment Conservation Amendment Bill [B 45D - 2003] - Act No
50 of 2003 (assented to and signed by President on 10 February
2004).
- Introduction of Bills
(1) The Speaker and the Chairperson
(i) Public Audit Bill [B 1 - 2004] (National Assembly - sec
75)
Introduction by the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Auditing Function
of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the Joint Tagging
Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160, on
12 February 2004.
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.
- Bills passed by Houses - to be submitted to President for assent
(1) Bill passed by National Council of Provinces on 11 February
2004:
(i) National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill [B
30D - 2003] (National Council of Provinces - sec 76)
National Assembly
- Membership of Assembly
The vacancy which occured owing to the resignation of Dr B S Ngubane
with effect from 1 February 2004, has been filled with effect from 10
February 2004 by the nomination of Mr L K Joubert.
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Speaker and the Chairperson
Recommendations of the Joint Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Oversight and
Accountability which were adopted by the Joint Rules Committee on 25
March 2003:
The Report of the Joint Rules Committee on the Implementation of
the Recommendations of the Joint Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Oversight
and Accountability, dated 17 November 2003, was published in the
ATC of the same day. The Report did not contain the full set of
recommendations of the Subcommittee.
At its meeting held on 26 November 2003, the Joint Rules Committee
resolved that the full set of resolutions contained in the final
report of the Joint Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Oversight and
Accountability be published in the ATC.
The following is the full set of resolutions including those
published on 17 November 2003:
Developing an understanding of oversight
Recommendation 1
The Subcommittee recommends that:
1.1 Parliament through the Joint Rules Committee (JRC),
compiles a document "landscaping" the Constitutional
provisions dealing with the inter-related themes of Oversight,
Accountability, Transparency and responsiveness, and outlining
international trends. Such a document should also include
inputs from key constitutional negotiators either in the form
of commissioned research or essays, (preferably both).
1.2 Following the tabling of the abovementioned document,
debates, workshops and discussions should be programmed and
organised within Parliament, first amongst MP's themselves,
and then later on expanded to include other stakeholders.
These debates and discussions should have as their objective
the development of a broad understanding of the Oversight Role
and Purpose of Parliament within our Constitutional democracy.
Coordination between the Houses
Recommendation 2
The Subcommittee recommends that:
2.1 The JRC initiate a process aimed at drafting guidelines
for portfolio and select committees to allow inter-alia for
joint planning of oversight work.
2.2 A process should be initiated to establish protocols to
ensure structured communication between committees through
streamlining of the committee section, which would allow for
more effective and formal communication between committees of
both Houses that embark on mutual interest oversight work and
briefing sessions.
Building Parliament's Oversight Capacity
Recommendation 3
The Subcommittee recommends that:
3.1 The Joint Rules Committee begins a process aimed at
producing a long term institutional Vision and Mission
Statement aimed at building Parliament's oversight
capabilities through adequate resourcing and capacity building
in committees, Constituency offices and within Parliament's
administrative support structures - in particular the
Committee section where a record-keeping system, and tracking
mechanisms are required to be established.
3.2 Parliament adopts a policy requiring each new Parliament
to assess and review its oversight capabilities once during
its five-year lifespan.
Institutions Supporting Democracy
Recommendation 4
The Subcommittee recommends that:
The matters of independence of the ISD, the more co-ordinated
interaction between Parliament and the ISD, the effectiveness
of the oversight role of the ISD, their budgetary procedures
and their accountability to Parliament, be the subject of a
more extensive consultation process that should involve all
role-players. This kind of process we believe should be
initiated by Parliament and that it would be for Parliament to
decide how best to engage in this process.
Developing and Institutional Memory
Recommendation 5
The Subcommittee recommends that:
Parliament, urgently takes measures to develop a Best Practice
Guide to capture, inter alia, the best oversight practices of
committees and the experiences of chairpersons of various
Select and Portfolio Committees.
Fine tuning and development of Oversight Mechanisms
Recommendation 6
The Subcommittee recommends that:
6.1 Parliament commissions an audit of the various bodies
exercising public powers pr performing public functions and
which should in addition be clearly delineate which line
function departments are responsible for the various organs of
state. Portfolio and Select Committees within parliament will
consequently assume the necessary oversight responsibility.
6.2 Parliament through the JRC develops a policy aimed at
meeting its constitutional obligations set out in s
55(2)(b)(ii).
6.3 Such a policy should consider the necessity for basic
legislation giving effect to s 55(2) on issues of oversight
and accountability and dealing especially with organs of state
directly accountable to Parliament.
6.4 The JRC develops a policy allowing for more debates on
committee oversight reports to be programmed. These debates
should take the form of MPs raising issues of concern based on
the report tabled and Ministers responding to those issues.
Introducing Oversight Mechanisms: Accountability Standards Act
Recommendation 7*
The Subcommittee recommends that:
Option 1
Parliament should begin a formal process of evaluating its
oversight activities as distinct from its legislative role and
developing a manual on Accountability and Oversight for MPs and
Committees, with the intention of constantly developing and
refining such a manual.
Option 2
Parliament should adopt the recommendation as proposed by the
consultant's that an Accountability Standards Act be enacted.
(* Joint Rules Committee still has to decide on which option to
adopt)
Bringing Parliament's oversight role to bear on the Budget Process
Recommendation 8
The Subcommittee noting the inextricable link between effective
Parliamentary oversight and Parliament's role in the budget
process recommends that:
Parliament develops a formal process to enact legislation in terms
of section 77(2) of the Constitution.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Assembly
-
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Auditing Function, dated 3 February 2004:
The Ad Hoc Committee on Public Auditing Function was established by Resolution of the House (see Minutes of Proceedings of National Assembly, dated 24 June 2003, p 700) and mandated to introduce a bill on the objects contained in a legislative proposal reviewing the public auditing function, which was submitted to the Speaker by the Audit Commission (see Announcements, Tabling and Committee Reports, 2 June 2003, p 518)
The Ad Hoc Committee reports as follows:
That it has completed its task for which it was established and wishes to submit its report as well as to introduce the Public Audit Bill [B1 - 2004] (National Assembly section - 75) by submitting a copy thereof to the Speaker in accordance with Rule 243.
Prior notice of the introduction of the bill was given in the Government Gazette, No 25064, dated 5 June 2003, by this Parliament, and an explanatory summery of the draft bill was published in the same Gazette. The Gazette also contained invitation to interested persons and institutions to submit written representations on the draft legislation to the Secretary to Parliament before 25 June 2003. On that basis, the Committee held public hearings where public input was entertained.
In addition, the Committee consulted with: the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defense, the Auditor-General, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Presidency, the National Department of Intelligence, the Department of Defense, the South African Police Service and the National Treasury. The Ad Hoc Committee wishes to take this opportunity to thank all those who willingly provided their valuable input and guidance to the Ad Hoc Committee.
Accordingly, having spent a considerable amount of time in consultations and deliberations on the draft bill over that past few months, the Ad Hoc Committee wishes to put its recommendations to the House as follows:
The Auditor-General is a Chapter Nine institution in terms of the South African Constitution and as such, is accountable to the National Assembly. Until now the National Assembly has not decided upon or established a mechanism in terms of section 55 (2) of the Constitution through which Chapter Nine bodies should account. In this regard, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the National Assembly, through its Rules Committee, gives effect to section 55 (2) of the Constitution by establishing an oversight mechanism to which the Auditor-General should account. This will have the effect of replacing the current Audit Commission, which comprises Members of the National Assembly, Members of the National Council of Provinces and members of civil society.
The Committee also recommends that the Rules Committee also considers that the sole mandate of the new oversight mechanism be oversight over the Auditor-General. The reasons for this being:
-
That the work of the Auditor-General concerns the quality of work of the Executive Government and issues of independence which go beyond those of the other Chapter Nine bodies;
-
The nature of the work of the Auditor-General is more technically specific than that of the other Chapter Nine bodies. Therefore, this requires an oversight mechanism that dedicates its attention to its work and has a particular understanding and knowledge of the institution;
-
The Auditor-General is the National and Provincial Legislatures’ most important and single biggest supplier of oversight information. And as such, it is an integral part of the conventional accountability chain prescribed by the Constitution;
-
In terms of its size and resources, it is substantially bigger that all the other Chapter Nine bodies considering its budget, infrastructure and personnel; and
-
As the only Chapter Nine body that does not receive funds through any Vote, there is particular oversight requirement regarding its income and expenditure.
The above considerations make it increasingly desirable that members who will serve on the envisaged oversight mechanism will be able to concentrate their attention on the specific attributes of the Auditor-General and to become appropriately knowledgeable in this regard. It is also recommended that all practical considerations of the new oversight mechanism conform to the existing National Assembly rules and practices.
Our final recommendation is that the provisions in question, regarding the introduction of the new oversight structure and its replacement of the existing Audit Commission, only be effected from 1 April 2004.
-
Report to be considered.