National Assembly - 25 June 2004
25 JUNE 2004 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 9:03
The Deputy Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
RETIREMENT OF KEITH GOSKAR AND ERIC VALENTYN
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that two stalwarts of the parliamentary staff are retiring at the end of June after more than three decades of service to Parliament;
(2) acknowledges the contribution made by Keith Goskar and Eric Valentyn to Parliament and to the many people who have worked with them over the years;
(3) thanks them for their good work and their patience with those of us who have made demands on their time; and
(4) wishes them a long and happy retirement.
Agreed to.
POINT OF ORDER
(Ruling)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would like to make a ruling on what transpired in the House yesterday. During the Declaration of Vote on the Defence Budget Vote, the hon Mr Sayedali-Shah of the DA said and I quote:
We have continuously stated, and state so now, that the arms deal, with its accompanying corruption, is undesirable and too expensive.
The hon Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority party subsequently raised a point of order on the basis that the issue of corruption in the arms deal was investigated by Chapter 9 institutions, upon which a report was tabled in the House and certain findings were accepted.
In response to the Deputy Chief Whip’s point of order, I indicated that I would study the Hansard and then give a ruling. I have looked at the Hansard and wish to rule as follows: The Scopa report adopted by the House did indicate that, and I quote:
No evidence was found on any improper or unlawful conduct by the Government in the arms deal. The irregularities and improprieties referred to in the findings, as contained in the Joint Investigating Team’s report, point to the conduct of certain officials of the Government departments involved.
The hon Mr Sayedali-Shah’s general reference to corruption is therefore, in any event, not in conflict with the findings of the House and is not unparliamentary, but it is a matter for debate.
EXTENSION OF THE TERM OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the House, in terms of section 7 of the Electoral Commission Act, 1996, as amended, recommends that the term of office of the current members of the Electoral Commission, which expires on 30 June 2004, be extended until 30 September 2004.
Declarations of vote made on behalf of the Democratic Alliance and the African Christian Democratic Party.
Agreed to. ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE
(Draft Resolution)
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in the name of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party on the Order Paper, as follows:
That the House, with the concurrence of the National Council of Provinces, establishes a Joint Budget Committee, the Committee to -
(1) consist of -
(a) 17 Assembly members as follows: African National Congress 10;
Democratic Alliance 2; Inkatha Freedom Party 1; other parties
4; and
(b) 9 Council members;
(2) consider proposed allocations in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and the Appropriation Bill and whether these allocations are broadly in keeping with the policy directions of the Government; (3) make proposals regarding the processes Parliament should follow with regard to its role in the developing of budgets in accordance with constitutional requirements;
(4) on a regular basis monitor monthly published actual revenue and expenditure per department, and to ascertain whether they are in line with budget projections;
(5) consider, when tabled, the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, with the exception of those sections dealing with the macro-economic situation and revenue;
(6) conduct hearings on the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and Budget Policy Review Document, with the exception of those sections dealing with the macro-economic situation and revenue;
(7) exercise those powers in Joint Rule 32 that may assist in carrying out its functions;
(8) report -
(a) on the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement regarding the
matters referred to in paragraph 5; and
(b) quarterly regarding the matters referred to in paragraph 4;
and
(9) consider and make proposals regarding the nature of its functions relative to those of other committees in respect of the budget process and conducting oversight, the Committee to report thereon from time to time as may be necessary and to submit a final report by not later than the end of the next budget cycle in Parliament.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, there appears to be some confusion. The hon Deputy Chief Whip indicated to me earlier that the IEC motion would stand over until the end. There now seems to be a problem because we have a declaration on that matter.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, the hon Gibson is quite correct. I apologise. We indicated that arrangement to him. Subsequent to that discussion, we received advice regarding possible legal problems that might arise which haven’t been, indeed, sorted out. It has been an omission on our part and we apologise.
The SPEAKER: So, will this second motion stand over until some time later?
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, you can go ahead and then they can make a declaration.
Declarations of vote:
Mrs S V KALYAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, the DA supports the motion. However, we would like to make it absolutely clear that the situation that gave rise to this is unacceptable to the DA, and to all who seek to support and uphold the Constitution of our country. The Independent Electoral Commission is an independent body and the amending Bill undermines the separation of powers, and makes the IEC subject to the temporary whims of both Parliament and the President.
The only crisis was that the IEC and Parliament failed to appoint members of the commission timeously. There is a perfectly adequate secretariat that could have functioned for one or two months in the interim, rather than tamper with the guardian of the Constitution. By-elections could have been postponed for a few weeks. The amending Bill needs to be repealed in the next session of Parliament. The DA will reluctantly support this motion.
Mr S N SWART: Madam Deputy Speaker, the ACDP similarly supports the motion. However, we also wish to reiterate our position that, as indicated in the committee, this situation was foreseeable and the amendment would not have been necessary, had steps been taken earlier.
We would also prefer that a specified period be set out in the amending legislation and would endorse the call that this legislation should be repealed at a later stage. We will, however, support the motion. I thank you.
Agreed to.
ABSENCE OF MINISTERS AND DEPUTY MINISTERS FROM THE CHAMBER
(Announcement)
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have an announcement to make. Ministers and Deputy ministers are absent today because they are attending a Cabinet engagement: the intergovernmental relations workshop that is being held in Pretoria. Mr Skweyiya is here to represent the entire Cabinet. [Applause.]
ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO PAN AFRICAN PARLIAMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I wish to remind members of Parliament that the Pan-African Parliament Protocol requires that at least one of the members elected to serve on the Pan-African Parliament should be a woman. Our Parliament has, however, agreed that three of the delegates should be women.
The following nominations have been received: ANC - Ms B Mbethe, Mr M J Mahlangu of the NCOP and Ms F Hajaig; DA - Mr W J Seremane; IFP - Ms S C Vos; ACDP - Adv Z L Madasa; PAC - Dr S E M Pheko; MF - Miss S Rajbally. Are there any further nominations?
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This relates to the procedure to be followed for conducting this election. In terms of the decision of the Rules Committee, the candidates being nominated were invited to attend a meeting with the opposition collective, which was convened under the chairpersonship of the Secretary to the National Assembly.
This meeting duly took place and all of these candidates came, and the instruction from the Rules Committee was that they should be given the opportunity of addressing the opposition collective. The opposition should then try to reach consensus, and if they could not do that, a vote should ensue. I think it is important for the House to be aware of this. The vote in fact took place. Dr S E M Pheko of the PAC received no votes; Ms S Rajbally of the MF received no votes; Adv Z L Madasa of the ACDP received two votes; Mr M B Skosana of the IFP received 44 votes and Mr J Seremane of the DA also received 44 votes.
What I must say is that I had understood that the people who were unsuccessful would fall off, and that the House would then respect the choice of the opposition collective. [Interjections.] The fact that the IFP has withdrawn Mr M B Skosana and substituted Ms S C Vos, is obviously having a bearing on the question of women’s representation. The DA, of course, will be delighted to support her, but I maintain that the only candidates who should be for the House then are Mr Joe Seremane of the DA, Ms S C Vos of the IFP, and the candidates as nominated by the majority party.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: On what Rule is Mr Gibson rising to take what he calls a point of order?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have seen a number of hands, but I think let us reflect on what what we are supposed to be doing today. The names, for instance, from the majority party enjoy the support of everybody in the majority party, but they still have to be subjected to an election here. That is why we will know because they will all be subjected to an election in the House. So whatever bilaterals and whatever arrangements people make outside the House, they still have to be subjected to an election in the House. [Applause.]
Now, I was at a point where I was asking if there were any further nominations. As far as how we are going forward, I think I made that very clear. I will put the nominations in alphabetical order.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: May I address you on a point of order? To what extend is this National Assembly bound by the protocols of the Pan- African Parliament itself? In other words, the question which I ask at this point is: When this House made a previous decision about electing delegates to Pan-African Parliament members, I approached the Commissioner for Political Affairs in the African Union, Mrs Joenha, to lodge an objection about that procedure. The Pan-African Parliament protocols themselves inter alia require that diversity of opinion should be expressed in the election of the members concerned. To what extent is this House bound by the protocols of the Pan-African Parliament and, if so, what bearing does that have on the election we are about to undertake?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Firstly, that is not even a point of order, but let us address that point as well. That point has no bearing on what we are about to do, except that if at the end of the election Mr Leon is convinced that this diversity that he is talking about is not addressed by the five people that will emerge from this election, then that can be entertained. Do I have the support of the House or not? [Applause.]
To further strengthen the point that I just made, there is even the credentials committee of the Pan-African Parliament which will also make sure that we have adhered to the requirements. So it is not just our own thing here. There is a bigger body that is going to look at that. May we proceed, hon members? Members, I will now put the nominations in alphabetical order by name. [Interjections.]
Mr D K MALULEKE: Deputy Speaker, if people would only learn to listen when other people talk. [Interjection.] Deputy Speaker, I would like it to be clarified. What was the purpose of the Rules Committee to actually go through the exercise of getting the opposition parties together in order to get consensus? Thank you. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, the DA is obviously engaged in a shameless exercise of trying to filibuster this exercise. [Interjections.] There are rules in terms of which we elect delegations in this House. This matter has been discussed at length in both the Rules Committee and the Programme Committee. I think we have exhausted this topic and I ask that we proceed on this matter, in view of indications from the Chair that there are mechanisms to deal with any dissatisfaction that might arise out of this procedure, but the DA is foreseeing problems with this procedure before we have even started with it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, let us continue. We might find that the final product is actually the product that the DA likes. [Laughter.] Of course you are right, Mr Gibson, if that is a desirable outcome, the ANC will respect that. I hope so. Members should vote for each candidate when the name is put. The five candidates with the largest number of votes will be elected to the Pan-African Parliament. When members have cast their votes for all candidates, I shall announce the voting results and the duly elected candidates. The bells will be rung for five minutes to alert members to the vote being taken.
We will try to go as slowly as possible just to make sure. We did mention that the nominations would be put in alphabetical order by name. Members should vote for each candidate when the name is put. The five candidates with the largest number of votes will be elected to the Pan-African Parliament. When members have cast their votes for all candidates, I shall announce the voting results and the duly elected candidates. I am mentioning this to make sure that we all understand what we are supposed to be doing.
A question also came up as to how many times we are allowed to vote. You are allowed to vote for the eight names. I think we have eight names. So you don’t have to vote for three or something else, because there isn’t that kind of rule. Of course, you can only vote yes, no or abstain. You cannot do all three at once. To allay the fears of some people who might think that the process will not be as transparent as possible: it will be. There will be a printed record of the voting and that will be part of the minutes of today’s sitting.
There were no further nominations.
The Deputy Speaker announced that Ms Rajbally had subsequently withdrawn her nomination.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Koos van der Merwe?
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, we now have seven candidates, but we can only elect five. Do I have five votes or seven votes?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have seven votes.
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: But suppose we all vote for seven, then there are seven successful candidates? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is okay. That is fine. Let us not pre-empt what is going to happen. Let us go through the exercise. If we have that situation, we will then require some expertise, like that of Mr Koos van der Merwe, to take us through it. But for now we do not have a problem. Agreed?
The Deputy Speaker further announced that members would be called to vote for each candidate. The five candidates with the largest number of supporting votes would be duly elected as members of the Pan-African Parliament.
Dr C P MULDER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of procedure. Could you please give us the seven nominated names in alphabetical order so that we can write them down before we start voting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Should I call them out again now in alphabetical order? I will do so.
The Deputy Speaker announced that the following nominations had been received: Ms F Hajaig (ANC), Adv Z L Madasa (ACDP), Mr M J Mahlangu (ANC- NCOP), Ms B Mbete (ANC), Dr S E M Pheko (PAC), Mr W J Seremane (DA) and Ms S C Vos (IFP). Should I read them out again or is everybody fine? The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I now put the question. I hope you do not have any other questions. Let’s go on to the election.
Question put: That Ms F Hajaig be elected as a member of the Pan-African Parliament.
AYES - 231: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Batyi, F; Beukman, F; Bhamjee, Y S; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Blose, H M; Booi, M S; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan-Khota, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Davies, R H; De Lille, P; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Diko, M; Dipico, E M; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlali, D M; Dodovu, T S; Doidge, G Q M; Dudley, C; Durr, K D S; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabela, L S; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Godi, N T; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Goniwe, M T; Green, L M; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Harding, A; Hogan, B A; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Joemat, R R; Johnson, M; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Kondlo, N C; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Labuschagne, L B; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Likotsi, M T; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Maduma, L D; Magau, K R; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G B; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maloyi, P D N; Maluleka, H P; Manana, M N S; Manie, M S; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masithela, N H; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlala, M H; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mentor, M P; Meruti, M V; Meshoe, K R J; Mfundisi, IS; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohamed, I J; Mokoena, A D; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkabinde, N C; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana-Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Phungula, J P; Pieterse, R D; Pule, B E; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Ramphele, T D H; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E; Schneemann, G D; Seaton, S A; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S; Sigcau, Sylvia N; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Swart, S N; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L L; Zulu, B Z; Zulu, N E.
NOES - 7: Coetzee, R; Morgan, G R; Mulder, C P; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Swathe, M M; van der Walt, D; Weber, H.
ABSTAIN - 5: Chang, E S; Joubert, L K; Mdlalose, M M; Sibuyana, M W; Vezi, T E.
Question put: That Adv Z L Madasa be elected as a member of the Pan- African Parliament.
AYES - 221: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Beukman, F; Bhamjee, Y S; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Blose, H M; Booi, M S; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan-Khota, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Davies, R H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Diko, M; Dipico, E M; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlali, D M; Dodovu, T S; Doidge, G Q M; Dudley, C; Durr, K D S; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabela, L S; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Goniwe, M T; Green, L M; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hogan, B A; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Joemat, R R; Johnson, M; Joubert, L K; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Kondlo, N C; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Maduma, L D; Magau, K R; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G B; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maloyi, P D N; Maluleka, H P; Manana, M N S; Manie, M S; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masithela, N H; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlala, M H; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mdlalose, M M; Mentor, M P; Meruti, M V; Meshoe, K R J; Mfundisi, IS; Mgabadeli, H C; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohamed, I J; Mokoena, A D; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mulder, C P; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Phungula, J P; Pieterse, R D; Pule, B E; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Ramphele, T D H; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E; Schneemann, G D; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S; Sigcau, Sylvia N; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Stephens, M; Swart, S N; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L L; Zulu, B Z.
NOES - 4: Batyi, F; De Lille, P; Harding, A; Pheko, S E M.
ABSTAIN - 9: Burgess, C V; Godi, N T; Likotsi, M T; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Rajbally, S; Seaton, S A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkabinde, N C; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana- Van der Merwe, J H; Vezi, T E; Zulu, N E.
Question put: That Mr M J Mahlangu be elected as a member of the Pan- African Parliament.
AYES - 232: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Batyi, F; Beukman, F; Bhamjee, Y S; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, M J; Bloem, D V; Blose, H M; Booi, M S; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan-Khota, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Davies, R H; De Lille, P; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Diko, M; Dipico, E M; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlali, D M; Dodovu, T S; Doidge, G Q M; Dudley, C; Durr, K D S; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabela, L S; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Godi, N T; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Goniwe, M T; Green, L M; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Harding, A; Hogan, B A; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Joemat, R R; Johnson, M; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Kondlo, N C; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Likotsi, M T; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Maduma, L D; Magau, K R; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G B; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maloyi, P D N; Maluleka, H P; Manana, M N S; Manie, M S; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masithela, N H; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlala, M H; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mentor, M P; Meruti, M V; Meshoe, K R J; Mfundisi, IS; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohamed, I J; Mokoena, A D; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse- Hounkpatin, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkabinde, N C; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana-Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Phungula, J P; Pieterse, R D; Pule, B E; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba- Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Ramphele, T D H; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E; Schneemann, G D; Seaton, S A; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S; Sigcau, Sylvia N; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Stephens, M; Swart, S N; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Woods, G G; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L L; Zulu, B Z; Zulu, N E.
ABSTAIN - 4: Joubert, L K; Mdlalose, M M; Rajbally, S; Vezi, T E.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to remind Mr Wang that you do not need an ID to vote. Please vote. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Question put: That Ms B Mbete be elected as a member of the Pan-African Parliament.
AYES - 235: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Batyi, F; Beukman, F; Bhamjee, Y S; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, M J; Bloem, D V; Blose, H M; Booi, M S; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan-Khota, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Davies, R H; De Lille, P; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Diko, M; Dipico, E M; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dlali, D M; Dodovu, T S; Doidge, G Q M; Dudley, C; Durr, K D S; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabela, L S; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Godi, N T; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Goniwe, M T; Green, L M; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Harding, A; Hogan, B A; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Joemat, R R; Johnson, M; Joubert, L K; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Kondlo, N C; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Likotsi, M T; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Maduma, L D; Magau, K R; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G B; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maloyi, P D N; Maluleka, H P; Manana, M N S; Manie, M S; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masithela, N H; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlala, M H; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mentor, M P; Meruti, M V; Meshoe, K R J; Mfundisi, IS; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohamed, I J; Mokoena, A D; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mulder, C P; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkabinde, N C; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana- Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Phungula, J P; Pieterse, R D; Pule, B E; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Ramphele, T D H; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E; Schneemann, G D; Seaton, S A; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S; Sigcau, Sylvia N; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Stephens, M; Swart, S N; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Vos, S C; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Woods, G G; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L L; Zulu, B Z; Zulu, N E.
ABSTAIN - 2: Mdlalose, M M; Vezi, T E.
Question put: That Dr S E M Pheko be elected as a member of the Pan- African Parliament.
AYES - 20: Batyi, F; Bekker, H J; Bhengu, M J; Bici, J; Burgess, C V; De Lille, P; Diko, M; Ditshetelo, P H K; Godi, N T; Harding, A; Likotsi, M T; Mfundisi, IS; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nkabinde, N C; Pheko, S E M; Pule, B E; Sigcau, Sylvia N; Stephens, M; Vezi, T E; Wang, Y.
NOES - 210: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Beukman, F; Bhamjee, Y S; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Blose, H M; Booi, M S; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chang, E S; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan-Khota, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Davies, R H; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dipico, E M; Dodovu, T S; Doidge, G Q M; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabela, L S; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Goniwe, M T; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hogan, B A; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Joemat, R R; Johnson, M; Joubert, L K; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Kondlo, N C; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Maduma, L D; Magau, K R; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G B; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maloyi, P D N; Maluleka, H P; Manana, M N S; Manie, M S; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masithela, N H; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlala, M H; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mdlalose, M M; Mentor, M P; Meruti, M V; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohamed, I J; Mokoena, A D; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse- Hounkpatin, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana-Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Phungula, J P; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba- Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Ramphele, T D H; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E; Schneemann, G D; Seaton, S A; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S; Sibuyana, M W; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, J H; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L L; Zulu, B Z; Zulu, N E;
ABSTAIN - 6: Dudley, C; Durr, K D S; Green, L M; Madasa, Z L; Meshoe, K R J; Swart, S N.
Question put: That Mr W J Seremane be elected as a member of the Pan- African Parliament.
AYES - 59: Beukman, F; Bhengu, M J; Boinamo, G G; Botha, C S; Camerer, S M; Chang, E S; Coetzee, R; Davidson, I O; Delport, J T; Ditshetelo, P H K; Doman, W P; Ellis, M J; Gibson, D H M; Greyling, C H F; Haasbroek, S F; Henderson, R K; Jankielsohn, R; Joubert, L K; King, R J; Labuschagne, L B; Lee, T D; Leon, A J; Lowe, C M; Maluleke, D K; Masango, S J; Mdlalose, M M; Mfundisi, IS; Minnie, K J; Mnyandu, B J; Morgan, G R; Nel, A H; Opperman, S E; Pule, B E; Rabie, P J; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Schmidt, H C; Seaton, S A; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Seremane, W J; Sibuyana, M W; Simmons, S; Smuts, M; Steyn, A C; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swathe, M M; Taljaard, R; Trent, E W; Van der Merwe, J H; van der Walt, D; van Dyk, S M; Van Niekerk, A I; van Schalkwyk, M C J; Vos, S C; Weber, H; Woods, G G; Zille, H; Zulu, N E.
NOES - 212: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Batyi, F; Bhamjee, Y S; Bhengu, F; Bloem, D V; Blose, H M; Booi, M S; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan-Khota, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Davies, R H; De Lille, P; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dipico, E M; Dlali, D M; Dodovu, T S; Doidge, G Q M; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabela, L S; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Godi, N T; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Goniwe, M T; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Harding, A; Hogan, B A; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Joemat, R R; Johnson, M; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; Komphela, B M; Kondlo, N C; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Likotsi, M T; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Maduma, L D; Magau, K R; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G B; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maloyi, P D N; Maluleka, H P; Manana, M N S; Manie, M S; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masithela, N H; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlala, M H; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mentor, M P; Meruti, M V; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohamed, I J; Mokoena, A D; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mulder, C P; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A C; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana-Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Nwamitwa- Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Pheko, S E M; Phungula, J P; Pieterse, R D; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba-Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Ramphele, T D H; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E; Schneemann, G D; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; September, C C; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Stephens, M; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van Wyk, A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L L; Zulu, B Z.
ABSTAIN - 9: Diko, M; Dudley, C; Durr, K D S; Green, L M; Madasa, Z L; Meshoe, K R J; Nkabinde, N C; Sigcau, Sylvia N; Swart, S N.
Question put: That Ms S C Vos be elected as a member of the Pan-African Parliament.
AYES - 255: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Asmal, A K; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Batyi, F; Bhamjee, Y S; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, M J; Bloem, D V; Blose, H M; Boinamo, G G; Booi, M S; Botha, C S; Burgess, C V; Cachalia, I M; Camerer, S M; Carrim, Y I; Chalmers, J; Chang, E S; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan-Khota, F I; Coetzee, R; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Davidson, I O; Davies, R H; De Lille, P; Delport, J T; Diale, L N; Dikgacwi, M M; Dipico, E M; Dlali, D M; Dodovu, T S; Doidge, G Q M; Doman, W P; Ellis, M J; Fihla, N B; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabela, L S; Gcwabaza, N E; Gerber, P A; Gibson, D H M; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Goniwe, M T; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Haasbroek, S F; Hajaig, F; Hogan, B A; Huang, S; Jacobus, L; Jankielsohn, R; Joemat, R R; Johnson, M; Joubert, L K; Kalako, M U; Kannemeyer, B W; Kasienyane, O R; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K M; Khunou, N P; King, R J; Komphela, B M; Kondlo, N C; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Labuschagne, L B; Landers, L T; Lee, T D; Lekgoro, M K; Lekgoro, M M S; Leon, A J; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Lowe, C M; Ludwabe, C I; Maake, J J; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Maduma, L D; Magau, K R; Magazi, M N; Magwanishe, G B; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maloyi, P D N; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, D K; Manana, M N S; Manie, M S; Martins, B A D; Masango, S J; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masithela, N H; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Matlala, M H; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbete, B; Mbombo, N D; Mdlalose, M M; Mentor, M P; Meruti, M V; Mgabadeli, H C; Minnie, K J; Mkhize, Z S; Mnandi, P N; Mngomezulu, G P; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohamed, I J; Mokoena, A D; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Moonsamy, K; Morgan, G R; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpaka, H M; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mulder, C P; Ndou, R S; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nel, A H; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Nhleko, N P; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Njobe, M A A; Nkabinde, N C; Nkuna, C; Nogumla, R Z; Ntombela, S H; Ntshulana-Bhengu, N R; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli, M M; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N; Nzimande, L P M; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Opperman, S E; Phadagi, M G; Phala, M J; Pieterse, R D; Rabie, P J; Radebe, B A; Ramakaba- Lesiea, M M; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C M P; Ramphele, T D H; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Saloojee, E; Sayedali- Shah, M R; Schmidt, H C; Schneemann, G D; Seaton, S A; Sefularo, M; Sekgobela, P S; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; September, C C; Seremane, W J; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Siboza, S; Sibuyana, M W; Sigcau, Sylvia N; Sikakane, M R; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Skweyiya, Z S T; Smith, P F; Smith, V G; Smuts, M; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Steyn, A C; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swathe, M M; Taljaard, R; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Trent, E W; Tsenoli, S L; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, J H; van der Walt, D; van Dyk, S M; Van Niekerk, A I; Van Wyk, A; Vezi, T E; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Weber, H; Woods, G G; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L L; Zille, H; Zulu, B Z; Zulu, N E.
NOES - 4: Greyling, C H F; Pheko, S E M; Simmons, S; Van Schalkwyk, M C J.
ABSTAIN - 16: Beukman, F; Diko, M; Ditshetelo, P H K; Dudley, C; Durr, K D S; Godi, N T; Green, L M; Harding, A; Likotsi, M T; Madasa, Z L; Meshoe, K R J; Mfundisi, IS; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Ngcobo, B T; Pule, B E; Swart, S N.
Ms F Hajaig, Adv Z L Madasa, Mr M J Mahlangu, Ms B Mbete and Ms S C Vos were accordingly elected as members of the Pan-African Parliament.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, may I address you?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, sir.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: You invited the House to consider the question of diversity at the conclusion of the voting. May I point out to you that South Africa is the only country on the African continent which has an opposition that doesn’t allow their opposition to go to the Pan- African Parliament. This is a shameful day for this country. Even Zimbabwe sends the MDC to the Pan-African Parliament. Even Zimbabwe does it.
We intend discussing this matter with the credentials committee of the Pan- African Parliament, and obviously the decision will be taken there. However, I think the hon members opposite us who pretended that this sham was Parliament, when, in fact, it was the ANC that took the decision and instructed their members as to which opposition people should go, should be ashamed of themselves. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for an hon member to describe a parliamentary process set out in the Rules as a ``sham’’?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Koos van der Merwe, you wanted to address us? I think that this is an opportunity for any declaration that any party would like to make honestly. We have given the floor to the DA, and I am sure you all have your views on this matter. Mr Koos van der Merwe, before you take your slot in which to speak to us, I would like to say that I think it is unfortunate that a word like “sham” had to be used for a procedure of this nature. No matter how hurt or angry some of us may be, I think that some of these words are very bad. I would ask you, sir, to withdraw the part in which you said that this was a sham. [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam, are you ruling that the word “sham” is unparliamentary? If you are ruling that, I will withdraw. If it is not unparliamentary, I won’t withdraw, because that is exactly how the official opposition feels about the process which has been conducted here. The pretence has been that Parliament, in its wisdom, would decide. In fact, the ANC caucus instructed their members as to how to vote. [Interjections.] And they instructed them to select which opposition people would represent the South African Parliament. This is quite contrary to what happens in democratic countries elsewhere in the world, and we should know that. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Gibson, I asked you to withdraw that because I strongly feel that it is unparliamentary.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, I don’t wish to be difficult with you of all people. If you are ruling that it is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it. However, I submit that it is not unparliamentary.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t know whether we need to get into a debate on whether a parliamentary procedure is a sham or not a sham, because it actually opens a bigger debate. I want to respect that if you don’t want to withdraw what is unparliamentary, it can be recorded as your not wanting to withdraw. You said that if I said it was unparliamentary, which I strongly feel it is, then you would withdraw. However, you stand up and still say that if I say “it is …” So you don’t want to withdraw. Should I take it that you don’t want to withdraw?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, with great respect to you - and I do not want to put you or the House in a difficult position
- I say that this procedure was a sham. If you rule that that is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it. If you …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I withdraw it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr Koos van der Merwe?
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise very proudly but also, as usual, very humbly, to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the IFP candidate polled the most votes. We are very proud of her and she will serve the Pan-African Parliament with dignity. [Applause.]
Mr L M GREEN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I just wish to take this opportunity, on behalf of the ACDP, to congratulate all the members who were elected. Thank you for the process. As a party we believe that the process was free and fair and that the election was not a sham. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
The DA is very well represented through Sue Vos. The DA came with a position like all the other parties came to this House with a position. Therefore it is incorrect for them to now throw mud at the ANC. We believe that Adv Madasa was part of the founding team which put the rules together for the Pan-African Parliament. Therefore we believe that the decision for the House to put him there was the correct decision. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N T GODI: Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the PAC I want to say that we accept the outcome of the process. We are a Pan-Africanist party, but we do not lay an inherent claim to any position in the Pan-African Parliament. We also want to acknowledge the integrity of the processes and the outcome, and congratulate those who have been elected. Thank you. [Applause.]
Dr C P MULDER: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to start off on behalf of the FF Plus to congratulate the members duly elected. I hope that they would represent our Parliament in a way that we can all be proud of them. The fact of the matter is that we must all take note of what happened today because it is not an isolated situation. The discussion currently going on with regard to the status of the official opposition should be done in the light of what has happened here today. Surely in principle it can’t be correct that the majority decide on behalf of the opposition parties who should represent them. [Interjections.] The principle is not correct.
Whether we agree with the process of today, that is something different, but one should not look at it in isolation. The fact of the matter is that we are also discussing the whole question of opposition. Perhaps the role of the opposition indicates to us where we are taking this democracy, and I am not convinced that we are taking it in the right direction. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr P J NEFOLOVHODWE: Madam Deputy Speaker, throughout this process of choosing people for the Pan-African Parliament, AZAPO always maintained that Parliament is supreme and that Parliament’s way of decision-making is the most democratic way of decision-making in the country, and therefore we accept the decisions that have been taken by Parliament. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Deputy Speaker, we from the UCDP say Parliament has spoken and as such we need to congratulate our colleagues who will be standing in for us at the Pan-African Parliament. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr M DIKO: Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the UDM we would like to say what has happened today is an indication that the DA, which is the majority in the opposition, should not always try to enforce its will on the opposition. Today they have had to pay the price exactly for that. [Applause.] What has happened today is a process, which has the blessing of Parliament, and we have come here to elect representatives to represent the UDM or Parliament in the Pan-African Parliament - and not to represent the opposition within the Pan-African Parliament. [Applause.]
Mr A HARDING: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to mention two things. Firstly, congratulations to all the candidates. We endorse the process. Secondly, as I said earlier on this week, all of those who have been elected here today should remember, in the first place, that they have been elected as a collective to represent the views of this Parliament. They are not going to put individual party-political positions forward. In addition to that, the ID want to say that the outcome of the election in this House should be accepted by all of us who sit in this House. If we accept that we are a collective, then we should accept collective decisions like we have today. I thank you. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Deputy Speaker, I also associate myself on behalf of the MF to say that the decision taken by this supreme House is final. I take this opportunity in congratulating the candidates who have been elected and we give our support to the Pan-African Parliament. Thank you [Applause.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Speaker, we would like to underscore the point that this is a delegation of Parliament and not merely a party delegation. Therefore, each member of Parliament has a right to be elected and the ANC will uphold that. Furthermore, it is the confirmation of our firm commitment to multiparty democracy as opposed to a one-party opposition state. We would want to make the point that we congratulate all the members who have been elected, and we are sure they will proudly represent our country. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL REPORT OF PUBLIC PROTECTOR
(Draft Resolution)
Mr I VADI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to begin by thanking members of the ad hoc committee for making it possible for us to complete our work within a very restrictive timeframe. I also wish to thank members for giving preference to the work of this committee and putting aside other tasks they might have had in Parliament. I want to thank them for the diligence, for their sense of punctuality and for their commitment in discharging this particular responsibility. My thanks also goes to the parliamentary staff - Dr Palmer and his legal team; Mr Ben Kali and members of the committee section, and to the research unit for the efficient and effective support rendered to our committee. I want to express my special gratitude to the Chair of Committees, Mr Geoff Doidge, for the logistical support he has rendered to our committee. Finally, I wish to thank the former Chief Whip of the ANC, the hon Nathi Nhleko, for his leadership and guidance in this particular matter. We wish him well in his new position and our best wishes go to him.
I wish to briefly sketch the background of the turn of events that became the subject of the ad hoc committee’s work. On 23rd August last year the National Director of Public Prosecutions issued a press statement in which he said:
The investigating team - that is into the arms deal - recommended that we institute criminal prosecution against Deputy President Mr Jacob Zuma. After careful consideration in which we looked at the evidence and the facts dispassionately, we have concluded that whilst there is a prima facie case of corruption against the Deputy President our prospects of success are not strong enough. That means that we are not sure if we have a winnable case. Accordingly we have decided not to prosecute the Deputy President.
On 30th October last year, the Deputy President lodged a formal complaint against the National Director and the Prosecuting Authority with the Public Protector.
The Deputy President raised concerns about the manner in which the investigation was conducted; the conclusion of the investigating team, the press statement itself, and the continuation of the investigation against him, even after the decision that he would not be prosecuted was announced. The Public Protector completed his investigation into the complaint and formally tabled his report to Parliament on 28 May 2004. A few days later, on 3 June, the National Assembly adopted a resolution to establish an ad hoc committee to consider this report and to report to the House, which we are doing today.
The House has set a formidable task for the ad hoc committee. We had to consider a complex and detailed report within a restricted and limited timeframe. It is also unfortunate that public statements were made by interested parties outside once the report had been made public. One member of the committee described it as verbal warfare. Public expectations were raised that the tensions between the Office of the Public Protector and the prosecuting authority would be resolved one way or another within Parliament, and specifically through the ad hoc committee.
We started our work in an electrically charged atmosphere. The first thing that the committee did was to clarify its mandate. We did so, so that we could have a common understanding of our purpose, what our tasks were and what we were hoping to achieve. I think the best way to indicate what we saw as our mandate is to indicate what we were not. We were not a court of law. We were not listening to contesting claims of the truth. We were not gathering further evidence or looking at further evidence to pronounce a judgement, so we were not a jury. We were not a commission of inquiry, so we were not reinvestigating what the Public Protector has already investigated. We were not a commission to review the findings of the Public Protector. We saw the report as a conclusive report with a set of findings and a clear set of recommendations. We were not out to review those findings, but simply to look at the recommendations in an objective way and to report to Parliament accordingly.
We were also not an administrative tribunal with a view to instituting disciplinary proceedings against any individual or institution. I think we are clarifying these things because there might have been a perception among the public that we were some of those things. In fact, we put it very simply that we were seventeen politicians - a bunch of politicians - with a very specific mandate and a specific task, and that task was to consider the report itself and to report to Parliament.
We understood “consider the report” to mean that we had to apply our minds to an investigative report which had findings and recommendations. We were to engage intellectually and mentally with the text itself, and having done that, independent of any witnesses or evidence, we needed to come to conclusions about the findings and also the recommendations of the Public Protector.
Our general approach was that we wanted to avoid from the beginning division in the committee. We insisted that we should seek consensus on all issues if possible. We wanted to listen to viewpoints and different perspectives on the issues raised. We wanted to persuade each other to come to a consensus position. We saw this really as an exercise in the power of argument, rather than a force of numbers in the committee. I think through that exercise we were able to develop a high level of consensus and shared understanding of the issues. I am pleased to report today that the committee did not vote on a single issue, and that I think was a remarkable achievement in view of the wide divergence of views that were in the committee and also in the public domain.
We thought that it is important to uphold the integrity of Parliament. Some people might have seen Parliament as a boxing ring where they could come and knock out an opponent. It is not a boxing ring or a court of law either. It is not a place where people can come and tell their stories, as you would do at a night campfire, where you can engage in storytelling. We wanted to uphold the dignity of this institution, provide leadership on this matter and act responsibly, also to calm the waters out there.
I think it is also important for us to emphasise upfront that it was not a question of choosing one institution or supporting one institution, or the Public Protector as opposed to the prosecuting authority. The committee believed very strongly that these two institutions are among the prized possessions of our constitutional democracy. For our democracy to thrive, it is important that we promote and enhance the stature of both these institutions in the public domain. It was irresponsible of us to try and demean the stature and integrity of one as opposed to the other.
The report has been tabled in the ATC. I don’t want to go into all the details of the ten findings of the Public Protector. The committee accepted seven of the 10 findings. It is in the ATC and I don’t want to go into them, and I am sure the members of the committee will speak about some of those. We expressed no opinion on the remaining three, in other words, we didn’t take position four or against, so we simply noted them.
We also noted the recommendations of the Public Protector. The Public Protector called upon Parliament to hold the Public Prosecutor accountable on two counts. The first was because the Public Prosecutor infringed on the constitutional right to human dignity of the Deputy President, and secondly the Public Protector launched his own specific complaint against the prosecuting authority for not co-operating with him in his investigation. What he was saying was that the act of nonco-operation would be constituted as being unconstitutional. For those two acts the Public Protector recommended that we hold the prosecuting authority accountable to Parliament. The committee noted the recommendations of the Public Protector. We took no view on the matter. We don’t stand for or against those recommendations. We simply noted them. What we are doing instead is presenting alternative recommendations to this House for consideration and perhaps for possible adoption today. We are pleased to report that all the parties that participated in the ad hoc committee support the report as a whole. Several parties expressed reservations or disagreements on three particular clauses of the report - and they will talk about it today - but the report as a whole has been endorsed and supported by all the parties and has been adopted unanimously by the committee.
I want to talk about our recommendations to the House, which this House has to consider. Firstly, it is important that we understand that the recommendations we are putting forward are not punitive in character. We don’t want to punish any individual or any institution. In fact, the thrust of the recommendations is remedial in nature. This is the first time the two constitutional structures have come into conflict with each other. They seem to have operated in a way which undermined the values of our Constitution, particularly Chapter Three which calls for co-operative government. We think we need to find remedial mechanisms rather than institute punitive measures against any one of them.
The first recommendation we put to the House is that we call on all organs of state, at any level of Government, national, provincial, local and also any other institution or organ of state to uphold and to promote the principles of co-operative government and the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The second proposal we are putting forward is that this House expresses its disapproval of the public statement made by the national director on 23 August 2003.
We wish to clarify that in expressing and supporting this, we are not asking for any action to be taken. We are simply expressing an opinion and that is, we think the institution overstepped its mark and we disapprove of that particular statement. Thirdly, we call upon the prosecuting authority to adhere in letter and in spirit to the prosecution policy which that authority itself has adopted, to adhere to the code of conduct for members of the prosecuting authority, and also to adhere closely to the United Nations guidelines on the role of prosecutors. The National Prosecuting Authority adopted all of these documents, and we are asking the national director and the members of the NPA to adhere as closely as possible to these policies.
We are making three specific recommendations to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development. The first is that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development should convene an urgent meeting between the national director and the Public Protector to harmonise relationships between the two individuals and also between the two offices. Both fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, and we don’t think it is a satisfactory situation that the two structures are at each other’s throats. We think an urgent meeting needs to be set up to resolve the tensions and to make sure that they co- operate with each other in future and in the best interests of society and of our country.
We also call upon the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to institute an effective system for information security within the prosecuting authority. We have noted the Hefer Commission’s report, and the Public Protector alludes to this in his own report, that information seem to have been leaking from the NPA. We think that it is an undesirable situation. We are calling for effective measures to be instituted so that this kind of thing does not happen again.
The third specific recommendation we wish to make to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development is to adhere to the provisions of section 31 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act which call for the establishment of a ministerial co-ordinating committee, and for a cluster of many security ministers to be established. I am told that such a committee has already been established and has met twice already.
I think what is important for us is that one of their specific tasks is to develop policy guidelines for the operations of the Scorpions. We think that those policy guidelines should be developed as a matter of urgency. We are calling upon the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development to report to Parliament within 60 days - it is a very specified period within which these things need to happen and the report needs to be tabled to the House.
Finally, we need to ask the Minister of Provincial and Local Government to introduce legislation to facilitate intergovernmental relations and dispute settlement mechanisms. In the committee’s deliberations we realised that we might be entering a grey area here, because I am told that such a Bill is already in a state of development, and that there is possibly a Cabinet workshop today. It might not be within the framework of the Bill to deal with all organs of state, so we might have to review this particular recommendation. We put it in for the consideration of the House, and it is for the House to decide.
Finally, we think that the House itself needs to be much more proactive in its oversight function. A number of things have happened in the past, and perhaps we have become complacent and are not aggressive and bold enough to hold people accountable. We think we need to reassert the authority of Parliament and reaffirm our oversight function. I believe that the committee has discharged its task and responsibility with credibility, with partiality and with integrity. I think we were in a difficult situation. These were important institutions, and I think we have acted in the best interests of Parliament and both institutions. It is my pleasure then to put this report before the House.
Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mrs S M CAMERER: Madam Speaker, the DA is pleased that the ANC majority on the ad hoc committee that considered the Public Protector’s report agreed to incorporate views of minority parties in the report to Parliament. After fiercely opposing the DA’s request that our objections to some of the majority party’s findings and recommendations be noted, the ANC eventually came to wiser insights in this regard. This enabled us to table the report unanimously.
Let me make clear which aspects of the report we disagree with: firstly, the ANC majority’s acceptance of the Public Protector’s finding that the statement of National Director of Public Prosecutions, Adv Bulelani Ngcuka, namely that there was a prima facie case of corruption against Deputy President Zuma, unjustifiably infringed Mr Zuma’s right to human dignity, and that it was therefore unfair and improper.
Our reasons are that the ANC majority refused to hear evidence or accept a submission from Adv Ncguka on why he acted as he did and the context in which he made the statement on which the complaints were based. Adv Ncguka offered to make a submission to the committee. On 9 June he wrote to the chairperson, the hon Vadi, and said: “The National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, believes that it is vital that we be afforded a hearing to respond to the issues raised in the report.”
There is a basic principle involved here: audi alteram partem, that is hearing the other side of the story. When we asked to hear Mr Ncguka’s version, we were accused by the ANC of wanting to reopen the investigation. This was never our intention and we repeatedly confirmed the DA’s view that it would be inappropriate. However, we felt it was essential to get evidence from Adv Ncguka, either in writing or in person, in order to apply our minds, as required, as to whether Adv Ncguka was justified in acting the way he did. Without hearing Adv Ncguka’s version, we were unable to form an opinion.
Secondly, we disagreed with the committee’s recommendation that the House expresses its disapproval of Adv Ncguka’s statement, for the same reason, namely that we had been prevented by the ANC majority on the committee from getting evidence from Adv Ncguka as to why he acted as he did.
We are unable to form an opinion as to whether his conduct was justifiable and proper, taking his mandate and the circumstances surrounding the statement into account. We were not permitted to ask and examine the question: What ought Adv Ngcuka to have done, knowing, as he did, that a 45-page charge sheet implicating the Deputy President in alleged corruption was about to become a public document? Accordingly, we are not in a position to approve or disapprove of the statement.
The other recommendations in the report are uncontroversial and the DA believes that some means must be found to clarify the mandates of these two important institutions. It is highly undesirable that two pillars of our constitutional democracy, two upholders of the rule of law and our justice system, namely the Public Protector and the National Director of Public Prosecutions, should have a mutually damaging public fight. Personalities aside, this dispute also centres on how far each institution may go in terms of their constitutionally and legally defined mandates.
We agree with hon Vadi that these are excellent, progressive institutions. We are a young democracy and the DA believes that the integrity of both institutions must be preserved and strengthened, rather than damaged in this way. We therefore support all the Public Protector’s suggestions to this end.
One question raised by these events is whether the Public Protector should entertain complaints from persons who have been or are being investigated by the NPA for the purpose of a case against them or other persons until that case has been completed.
In conclusion I would like to raise an issue which was highlighted in the media, namely of how the ANC members of the ad hoc committee were chosen. If it is true, it was surely inappropriate for the Deputy President to chair the committee which chose these members. We do not question their own integrity, but the perception of possible bias - the Deputy President chose his own jury - is there.
Finally, we believe the hon Vadi did a good job as chair of the ad hoc committee. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE: Madam Speaker, the IFP supports the report, with the following remarks and observations. Firstly, we wish to compliment the chairperson for doing excellent work in what was a very sensitive and challenging task. I would also like to thank all members of the committee, because to serve on this committee was both a pleasure and a very stimulating event.
We are satisfied that the institutions of the Public Protector and the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions have not been damaged in the process. We wish to draw attention to the fact that the Deputy President had, in our opinion, a legitimate complaint. It is not fair to hear that there is a prima facie case of corruption against one, but one is not to be prosecuted. One is therefore deprived of the opportunity to defend oneself. That statement, per se, was unwarranted and infringed on the dignity of the hon Mr Zuma and prejudiced his reputation.
However, the IFP and other parties insisted on calling the National Director of Public Prosecutions to come and explain why he made this statement. We did so, because we believe he has the right to audi alteram partem and had to explain himself before we could make a finding against him. Unfortunately the committee was not prepared to call him, and we regret that.
That means we were faced with the unfortunate situation of making a finding against a person without hearing his defence. That we could not do. In the circumstances, the IFP disagrees with paragraph 6(b) of the report. We are not prepared to express our disapproval, as proposed by the committee, regarding the statement by the national director, because he was not given an opportunity to state his case. In respect of finding 24.4 by the Public Protector, which refers to the alleged failure of the national director to co-operate with the Public Protector, we disagree with that finding of the Public Protector. There is ample proof that the national director forwarded a full report to the Minister, who duly passed it on to the Public Protector. The national director refused to give further information, because he rightly regarded the matter as sub judice. It is therefore not correct to say that he failed to co-operate.
We trust that the Public Protector and the national director will now put their differences to bed, in the best interests of the two institutions. We are therefore not prepared to hold the National Director of Prosecutions accountable, as proposed by the Public Protector.
In conclusion, the committee also offered the opportunity for lawyers to have a field day with Latin expressions. We started with the audi alteram partem rule, but there was a plea that the matter was sub judice and that the matter was a prima facie case. But then someone said, “This is a question of de minimis non curat lex”, and another one said, “But we should also remember that plus valet quod agitur quam quod simulate concipitur”. Then somebody else looked at another person and said, “Remember pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant”? And, eventually, we found that on the document there is no trace of our domicilium citandi et executandi. Thank you, M’am. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Mr M DIKO: Madam Speaker, hon members, the Public Protector submitted to Parliament a report with definitive findings and recommendations, even though he did not have the National Director of Public Prosecutions’s side of the story, by his own admission.
We find it difficult to accept that the Public Protector could have drawn the conclusions that he did, in the absence of certain information at the disposal of Mr Ncguka. During the deliberations on the report, it soon became clear that neither could we, as a committee, be given the opportunity to consider this additional information. If, as we have argued, the Public Protector could not have come to conclusive findings on the facts in his report, how then could we do any better without Adv Ngcuka’s testimony and certain background documents?
The National Director of Public Prosecutions raised, in defence of his decision not to provide further information to the Public Protector, the fact that it might interfere with an ongoing investigation and prosecution. On the face of it, this is a valid argument, in our opinion. Ironically, this was the same argument that the Public Protector applied last year when investigating the Deputy President’s assets.
The Public Protector could surely have recognised early on that an untenable situation was being created if one constitutional body sought to investigate another constitutional body and, perhaps, interfere in its constitutional mandate to prosecute criminals. This unexpected constitutional conundrum must be addressed as a matter of urgency. I thank you.
Mrs P DE LILLE: Madam Speaker, I need to bring to the attention of the House that there’s an error in the ATC of 23 June under recommendations 6(b). The Independent Democrats did not agree with the use of the word “constitutional” to describe the alleged infringement on the Deputy President’s dignity, and I hope this will be corrected.
Regarding the report itself, it’s not possible to reject or to confirm all the findings because we did not have access to all the documents that the Public Protector had access to. Chapter 9 institutions are state institutions supporting our constitutional democracy, in particular section 181 (2) that provides that these institutions are independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law, and they must be impartial and must exercise their powers and perform their functions without fear of favour or prejudice.
The Public Protector, in terms of section 181 (5), is also accountable to Parliament. Parliament should concern itself with the protection of the integrity and independence of these institutions. These institutions should work towards mutual co-operation and Parliament must play its role in ensuring that. Parliament should not allow itself to be used for internal party differences and fights. Parliament in itself is independent and must respect and protect the separation of powers.
The Public Protector could have subpoenaed the Minister and the national director, but he did not do so. At this stage, neither the ad hoc committee nor the Public Protector is able to say that if the Minister and the national director had co-operated, the report of the Public Protector would have been different. Perhaps his actions and report were premature; maybe he should have first exercised all his powers before submitting the report. I also note, Madam Speaker, that thanks to the extension of the ANC committee, the NNP and the PAC have been awarded one minute extra for their loyal support to the ANC in this committee. Thank you. [Interjections.]
Ms C B JOHNSON: Madam Speaker and hon members, in the three minutes at my disposal, there are two issues that I believe need to be addressed: The first being the mandate of the committee, and the second being that of impartiality, and that of justice not only being done, but manifestly being seen to be done.
The issue of the mandate of the committee is intrinsically linked to the extent and the parameters of the powers of Parliament. The committee was faced with the report of a matter investigated and compiled by an independent constitutional institution. We, the committee, were therefore not at liberty to reopen or reinvestigate the matter, because to do so would have been an indirect attack on the integrity of the Public Protector as a constitutional institution. So although we are Parliament and although these institutions are accountable and have to report to Parliament, Parliament is still subject to the Constitution - and for Parliament to simply take over the job of the Public Protector would have amounted to an abuse of power. So I can understand how certain people would have liked a fishing expedition, because it sells more newspapers and gets them more TV time on the news. However, to call for extra evidence and additional documents, and matters that were investigated by other fora in the past, was simply not allowed based on a separation of powers. This was a committee; it was neither a court of law, nor an administrative tribunal. [Applause.]
The committee’s jurisdiction was therefore limited to the parameters of the report before it. With regards to the issue of impartiality, there were people who - outside of the committee, I think - tried to create the impression that certain members of the committee were supporting a certain institution, whilst others were allegedly supporting another. Let me assure this House that nothing could be further from the truth. The committee functioned completely independently. We applied our minds to issues independently as the issues arose, and severely guarded against pre- empting any of the findings. It’s further important to note, Madam Speaker, that the committee did not follow the recommendations suggested by the Public Protector in its report, but after applying our minds to the matters at hand, the committee formulated its own recommendations, which are before the House today.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, with regard to the perceived lack of co- operation between the National Prosecuting Authority and the Public Protector, it is crucial and imperative for this House to prevent this type of situation from arising again in future, because the only thing that a situation such as this achieves, is that it detracts from the status of both these institutions. The remedial measures, as set out in the recommendations, should therefore guide and give direction with regards to good governance and better co-operation and coordination between such institutions in future. Finally, Madam Speaker, I have to thank the Chairperson the hon Vadi. It’s not a job that I would have wanted, but nobody did it better. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S N SWART: Madam Speaker, from the outset the ACDP held the view that when evaluating the Public Protector’s key findings and recommendations, it was critical to consider that the Public Protector, by his own admission, made his findings, “in the absence of any explanation by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and the National Director of Prosecutions.” At the onset of the committee’s deliberations, the National Prosecuting Authority requested an opportunity to respond in the following terms: “The NPA believes that it is vital that we be afforded a hearing to respond to the issues raised in the report since the report makes findings that are extremely prejudicial to the NPA.” This request was not acceded to in breach of the already mentioned audi alteram partem rule.
The committee members were obliged thus to consider the report without the benefit of the national director’s submission, or any other background information that would have contextualised his statement. At the very least the NPA’s full press statement, consisting of some 13 pages, should have been formally tabled instead of limiting the discussion to one or two of its paragraphs. Had this been done, a clearer picture of the reasoning behind the national director’s decision would have emerged and the committee may well have concluded that the statement and the injury to the Deputy President’s dignity was justifiable under the circumstances of the investigation into corruption arising from the arms deal, as well as the subsequent formal charging of Mr Shabir Shaik and others only two days later. It is for this reason that the ACDP was not prepared to accept the findings and recommendations whereby Parliament “expresses its disapproval” of the national director’s conduct.
In conclusion, the ACDP will, however, support the remaining uncontroversial recommendations aimed at improving the relationship between the two institutions. I thank you.
Dr C P MULDER: Agb Mevrou die Speaker, in Afrikaans is daar ‘n spreekwoord wat sê dit klink vir my die berg het toe ‘n muis gebaar. [Hon Madam Speaker, in Afrikaans there is a saying; it appears to me as if the mountain has given birth to a mouse.]
We were under the impression that there was some huge thing happening somewhere in some ad hoc committee, but if I read the report this morning and I listen to the chairperson of the committee, it seems that it was very peaceful, very unanimous, with no problems whatsoever. However, if I listen to the different opposition parties, it seems that it was not so peaceful, and that there was not such a huge agreement as was indicated to us by the chairperson. The Freedom Front Plus, in terms of the composition of the committee, did not have the opportunity to serve on that committee. We tried to follow what was going on and we had a look at the documentation and the report.
Mevrou die Speaker, die feit van die saak is doodeenvoudig dit: Hoe sal ons weet of die bevindings van die ad hoc-kommittee nie dalk vroegtydig is nie? Wat baie duidelik is van die Openbare Vervolgingsgesag, is dat hulle nog hoegenaamd nie klaar is met die hele proses rondom hierdie aangeleentheid nie, dat die ondersoek nog steeds voortgaan en dat dit baie sleg mag ontplof, ook in die gesig van die Parlement. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is simply this: How will we know if the findings of the ad hoc committee were not premature perhaps? What is very clear from the Public Prosecution Authority, is that the entire process regarding this issue is nowhere near completion, that the investigation is still continuing and that it may backfire badly, also in the face of Parliament.]
The chairperson very clearly stated what this ad hoc committee was about. It’s not a commission of inquiry, it’s not this, it’s not that. But what was it then? What was it then? What was it supposed to do? Because it just came back, and basically accepted everything that was put in front of it.
Die feit van die saak is, Mevrou die Speaker, die VF Plus het ‘n probleem daarmee. Dit is duidelik dat die Nasionale Direkteur van Openbare Vervolging ‘n saak gehad het om te stel. As ons dan sê … [The fact of the matter, Madam Speaker, is that the FF Plus has a problem with that. It is quite apparent that the National Director of Public Prosecution had a matter to raise. If we then say …]
… And the Chairperson specifically referred to that. He said …
Daar moet gekyk word na die oorsigfunksie van die Parlement, dat die Parlement daardie rol effektief moet begin vertolk. Dan was hierdie, wat my betref, die heel eerste geleentheid om presies dit te doen en om presies dit te gebruik. Kry die persone voor die komitee, oefen demokrasie werklik uit, ondervra die mense, kry die feite op die tafel en neem dan ‘n besluit. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[The oversight function of Parliament needs to be looked at, that Parliament would start to play this role effectively. Then this would have been, as far as I am concerned, the very first chance to do precisely that and to implement precisely that. Get the persons in front of the committee, exercise real democracy, question the people, get the facts on the table and then make a decision.]
However, the impression I get was that this was so very peaceful, so wonderful and that nobody has ill feelings.
Niemand is kwaad vir enigiemand nie. Dis net wonderlik. [No one is angry with anyone. It is simply wonderful.]
I’m worried that it may be premature. Who knows what’s going to happen very soon. [Applause.]
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker and hon members, we are debating two institutions which are expected to do their work without fear, favour or prejudice, but what is at issue right now, is that seemingly prejudice did creep in.
I personally was not a member of the ad hoc committee because of the nature of the composition of the committee, but in reading through the report, one notices that all members agreed on the approach to the consideration of the report. Even paragraph 3c which relates to not considering additional evidence outside the report is included. Yet, some parties still feel strongly that the audi alteram partem` principle was not followed. Well, at the end of the day it is good that they did come to sing from the same score.
We endorse the recommendations and wish to appeal to the twosome, that is the National Director of Prosecutions and the Public Protector, to strive to find each other and to co-operate with the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in her quest for a solution to the impasse, as recommended in the report.
Re amogela gore dikgomo go tlhabana tsa lesaka, mme e re bo tshotswe bo le bolelo bo tsoge bo fodile. Marumo ‘fatshe borra, kana monyadiwa ga se mmolawa. Re rotloetsa gore tlhogo ya Botshotshisi jwa Bosetshaba le Mosireletsi wa Setshaba ba direle setshaba se ka botswapelo le boineelo ba tshwaraganetse tirokgolo e. Ke la me leo, go ya ka magoro ga se go tswana. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)
[We accept that there are often misunderstandings between colleagues, and we say that with time flying tempers will cool off. The people should reconcile. We encourage the head of National Prosecution Authority and the Public Protector to work for this nation with dedication, and they should join hands to do this mammoth task. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N T GODI: Madam Speaker, comrades and hon members, the PAC supports the report of the ad hoc committee.
From the beginning, the PAC has clearly understood the mandate of the ad hoc committee, and we are convinced that the committee has adhered to its mandate. Fortunately, the PAC participated in the ad hoc committee and, as such, was part of the construction and production of the report.
The key areas of the report deal with the findings and recommendations of the Public Protector. On the findings it will be noted that there are generally two aspects, namely, the findings on the investigated complaints by the Deputy President and the misunderstandings between the Public Protector and the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
In both instances we, as the PAC, are fully in agreement with the findings of the ad hoc committee. The ad hoc committee did the most responsible thing in making its own recommendations beyond that which are contained in the Public Protector’s Report.
What the PAC found disturbing and unacceptable was an attempt by some parties to turn the committee into an investigation committee and to play to the gallery. The issues investigated and discussed are fundamental to our democracy and should therefore be handled above partisan political interests.
Once again, the PAC supports the report. Thank you. [Applause.].
Miss S RAJBALLY: Madam Speaker, having read the report and having knowledge of the matter concerned, the MF notes the sensitivity of the issue, but holds firm that we are a democracy governed by our supreme law
- our national Constitution of 1996.
The report clearly exhibits the pattern of occasions leading to the incident of concern. It is through this deliberation of events and the technical-legal explanation of the terminology used, such as prima facie, and how, if any, rights have been infringed, that we take our stand.
We firmly agree that the statement made by Mr Ngcuka on the hon Jacob Zuma was not wisely made, and that it certainly compromised the hon Deputy President’s constitutional right to human dignity, as well as his career. However, we do feel it is Ngckua’s right to explain the matter from his side. It would be unjust not to receive a factual report regarding Ngcuka’s statement and his intent for making it. We do agree with the recommendations made by the committee to strengthen both institutions; that a meeting be convened between the two parties to settle differences and that legislation be introduced to -
promote and facilitate intergovernmental relations and provide for appropriate mechanisms to facilitate intergovernmental disputes.
The MF also finds need to compensate for the damage done to the hon Deputy President Jacob Zuma, to so attain balance and correct the injustice imposed. We also hope that this matter receives the earnest attention of the parties concerned, so that they would instil policy and legislation to mechanise intergovernmental relations away from a repetition of such an incident or a similar incident.
The MF agrees with committee chair, Ismail Vadi, that we should exercise our right by indicating disapproval where we feel an institution has overstepped its mark. Thank you. [Applause.]
Ms R TALJAARD: Madam Speaker, colleagues, it is clear that some members do not have a sufficient understanding of section 56 of the Constitution and indeed how it cross refers with the newly enacted Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act in the way the committee has been cast.
Apart from not having had the opportunity to hear the National Director contextualise and explain his statement, we firmly believe that the individual who should be doing some more explaining, more importantly, is the Deputy President himself. If there is any explanation that is necessary, it is Deputy President Jacob Zuma who should explain his bizarre conduct and some of his interventions, in his capacity as the Leader of Government Business, throughout the course of the arms deal investigation. His interventions date as far back as January 2001 when he wrote in a letter to Dr Gavin Woods on 19 January 2001:
To enable us to give the proper and necessary direction to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and the SA Police Service, I request Scopa indicates to me specific matters it wants investigated and why, providing the prima facie evidence which it believes justifies this investigation. As of now, we do not have this prima facie evidence and are completely at a loss as to what the loudly proclaimed wrongdoing consists …
[Interjections.] Bruce Kannemeyer, the hon Bruce Kannemeyer, the hon Bruce Kannemeyer …
The SPEAKER: Order! Order!
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Speaker, on a point of order: Firstly, the matter before the House is the report of an ad hoc committee into the Public Protector’s report. I’m not quite sure what the matters that the hon Taljaard is raising now have to do with that report. Secondly, could she please in future refer to hon members as such?
The SPEAKER: Hon Kannemeyer. Please proceed, hon member, but please stick to the debate. Ms R TALJAARD: Thank you, Madam. I indicated the hon Kannemeyer twice.
In a controversial letter on 29 January, the then Speaker noted in respect of the Deputy President’s letter: “Your concerns regarding the directions to the NDPP and SAPS are valid.” The Deputy President responded on 31 January… [Interjections.] This is quite critical to the context, Mr Nel, as you will recall. You were present:
The National Assembly’s preliminary report further makes allegations regarding flawed selection procedures with regard to the appointment of contractors. It would be helpful, therefore, if the committee in the subsequent report answered the following questions …
I quote from his correspondence again:
On what information does Scopa base its conclusions that improper
influence might have been exerted in certain of these selections?
[Interjections.] Which of these selections are being referred to and who are the influential parties? [Interjections.] The SPEAKER: Order! Hon Taljaard, it seems the thrust of your speech is really reminding us of what happened in the ad hoc committee. We are dealing with the Report of the Public Protector and I’d rather you stick to the report that is before the House.
Ms R TALJAARD: Thank you, Madam. The letters are on record and they will remain on Parliament’s record. Unfortunately, the Deputy President did not stop here and again entered the fray as Leader of Government Business, as was alleged in the Mail and Guardian. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Taljaard, please do not address the House about what happened historically that involves the Deputy President. Please, deal with the issue of the Report of the Public Protector and the report that is before us regarding the ad hoc committee’s work. [Applause.]
Ms R TALJAARD: Madam Speaker, as you are aware, we engaged in correspondence with you on this matter, and I certainly am dealing with the Public Protector’s Report in respect of the appointment procedure. [Interjections.]
In the Hefer process, Mr Zuma indicated, amongst others, that he would not co-operate with a subpoena from the judge. We also need to recall that the hon Deputy President instituted litigation against the NPA in order to obtain a copy from a fax from Thomson CSF/Thales. The unsuccessful litigation by the Deputy President resulted in the complaint he lodged with the Public Protector that forms the basis of the report of the Public Protector, and indeed the report of the committee.
It is quite clear that the Deputy President’s actions can be seen as a fishing expedition that dates as far back as 2001, and it needs explanation before this House. [Interjections.] Worse still, we are creating a precedent where those who wish to fish for evidence run to the Public Protector in order to create the type of clash that we have seen. [Time expired.] [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Mr M R BALOYI: Madam Speaker and the honourable House, so much has been said about what we ought to have done and what we did.
In my address here I will deal with some of these issues, with a view to take all of us on board so that we should be in a position to consider the understanding of the committee to have done what we did, and to have decided not to do some of the things that some of you may feel so strong that we should have done.
Let me talk about what we did. In keeping with the understanding that one of the characteristic features of our democracy is transparency, we stated from the beginning, as the ANC, that we would not like to run the business of the committee behind closed doors.
We said that we would like the media to have as much presence as they choose. It was our understanding that by doing so would appeal close to public expectation, as there was much awaited on the side of ordinary South Africans, the entire nation and the international community.
The question in this regard is as to whether doing so assisted the process of getting people to understand what was going on or what it was or not?
We committed ourselves to give the Public Protector’s report the attention it deserves. Inherent in this understanding is that the constitutional democracy that we championed as the ANC and that we are proud of in this country, instructs to respect and uphold the doctrine of the supremacy of the Constitution.
It is for this reason that the structures created by our supreme Constitution deserve to be treated with respect and that you do not encroach on their jurisdiction in the manner that may compromise their operation.
In this sense we were mindful of the fact that the Public Protector, as one of the structures created to support constitutional democracy in terms of Chapter 9 of the Constitution, conducted an investigation into the complaint as submitted to their office by the Deputy President.
The Public Protector worked under the conditions as reflected in the report that we had to consider. We resisted the temptation to see ourselves investigating the investigator in the person of the Public Protector. We noted that his report provided as much details as to assist anyone reading it to have as much information as to be able to form an opinion. We resisted the temptation to write into the Public Protector’s report.
Understanding that it is within the discretion of the Public Protector to choose a methodology of his own in investigating matters, we resisted the temptation to prescribe to him that he should have done this and not that, and that he should have followed processes that some of us would like to dictate to him.
Of course, it is clear that as the complaint was against the National Prosecuting Authority and the National Director for Public Prosecutions, our attention was drawn to the fact that we were yet dealing with another organ of state, created in terms of Chapter 8 of the Constitution, and that, similarly, we needed to handle the matter in a manner that this organ would also not feel that we wanted to clip its wings to execute its constitutional mandate.
Our understanding of the report of the Public Protector is that, in this case, it should be understood that, in a democracy, it is not unnatural that organs of state will from time to time bump against each other at the competing call of their constitutional mandates. People should not think that there is a crisis when such a reality dawns. They should simply consider that as a practical manifestation of democracy. It is just that a political party like the DA, which does not understand the meaning of democracy beyond their name, will always like to take advantage of natural developments to cry foul.
We dealt with this report the way we did, and we recommended the way we did because of our understanding of the interaction that took place and warranted the investigation, as well as what transpired during the investigation. What we are saying here should not be understood to suggest that these organs of state are not accountable and that they should be a law unto themselves. What we mean is that we may not strive to ensure accountability irrespective of the soundness of the individual actions of the organs involved.
However, Madam Speaker, we certainly did not do some of the things. We did not give in to the demands that we should have access to all the documents that the Public Protector used in the process of conducting an investigation, simply because we had no intention to suggest that we could do it ourselves.
I must say here that some political parties, the DA in particular, behaved like their main business in the activities of the committee was to secure documents. For what purpose I do not know.
Right on day one, they demanded documents. As we dealt with the report paragraph by paragraph, they demanded documents, and at one stage, they demanded a video recording of one of the persons implicated in the report. As we considered the findings of the Public Protector, they demanded documents. As we expressed ourselves in our recommendations, they demanded documents. As we considered our draft report as a committee, they demanded documents. Even as we are debating this report today, they still demand documents. For what purpose, I still do not know. [Interjections.]
What is notable in this regard is that at all such times as they demanded those documents, they could not convince the committee that the committee, in fact, needed those documents to process the report without reopening the investigation.
Also, throughout our consideration of the report, they demanded that we should call for the Public Protector and the National Director for Public Prosecutions to make oral representations to the committee.
Some members of the House may feel that they agree with this view, though for different reasons, with the DA wanting to use the platform to further polarise and humiliate them, and to turn Parliament into a circus. They always argued that we needed to hear the other side of the story, as if we were in an administrative tribunal or a court of law.
In fact, their narrow thinking was that we were going to recommend that actions be taken against some individuals implicated in the report, and they already acted as self-appointed lawyers.
Mr M J ELLIS: You are a clown!
Mr M R BALOYI: They never imagined that we would adopt a more reconciliatory approach the way we did.
It was in terms of this understanding, and the understanding of the complexity of the situation in which the two organs of state found themselves, that made us decide against oral representation.
Our understanding has always been that providing a stage for organs of state to flex their muscles and revere their strength would have been more damaging than the position we took, because, given the climate holding, it would not have been possible to engage one in oral submissions and you do not engage the other one, and, from the look of things, such engagements were not going to add value to the consideration of the report. We were not investigating and we are not investigators, as we have indicated.
However, Madam Speaker, why did we only note the finding of the Public Protector on the alleged non-cooperation between him on the one hand, and the national director and the former Minister on the other hand? The reason is that we considered the arguments of both side to act in the manner they did, and noted that they all argued in the interests of the scope of their functions, such that we decided against apportioning blame.
Another area that we may want to clarify - the chairperson already said something about this - is our position as to why we suggest that this House should express its disapproval on the statement alluding to the prevalence of a prima facie case of corruption against Mr Zuma, and that, despite that there was to be no prosecution.
We found the Public Protector’s finding to be acceptable, in so far as the statement is interpreted to mean that the complainant was, in fact, corrupt, but that he covered his back to make it difficult to convict.
The nature of the statement is such that unless it is qualified, it is open to be interpreted in a manner chosen by those who come across from time to time. Some may interpret it to confirm the allegations of the complainant, while others may not. Whereas the impact of the statement had the potential, and actually infringed on the integrity of the Deputy President, what became extremely difficult was the fact that no one could determine with exactness the deliberateness to harm when the Director issued such a statement.
It is against this background that our recommendations in this regard are far from suggesting any form of punishment to anyone, except that the House regrets such a statement. It is our understanding that there is no possible middle road that brings about the win-win situation, like this committee is submitting to the NA.
In conclusion … [Interjections.] … the lesson that we have all learnt, is the fact that for the Deputy President to have approached an institution of state to seek redress to his grievance, as he did, is an indication that the Bill of Rights, as contained in the Constitution, is meant for all. [Applause.]
The ANC supports the report, and we are actually putting it clear that, yes, the DA would have liked to use the committee to search for documents that only they know of and no-one of us knows of - and unfortunately now they find themselves in this situation. Good luck, continue searching for whatever documents, but we have actually indicated that you could not provide any convincing … [Interjections.] … reasons as to why such demands were put forward.
Madam Speaker, ndzakhensa. [Thank you.]
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Speaker, I move that the House adopts the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Special Report on an investigation by the Public Protector of a complaint by Deputy President J Zuma against the National Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Prosecuting Authority, in connection with the criminal investigation conducted against him, with the following amendments: Firstly, the deletion of paragraph 6(f), and secondly, the insertion of the following words after paragraph 6(h): “The House takes no further action in this matter and regards it as closed.”
Agreed to.
Report adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION OF VINE AND WINE
The was no debate.
Agreement establishing the International Organisation of Vine and Wine approved.
The SPEAKER: That concludes the business for the day, and hon members, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the House for the hard work that we have done since 23 April, when we were sworn in, in particular, in processing the Budget and all the other work that we have done; in succeeding to form the committees and therefore going away with permanent committees, and thus be psychologically ready to come back and really get on with the business for the rest of the year.
I really hope that hon members will take the opportunity to rest, so that you come back here fresh and ready to deliver to voters that voted us into this House. Thank you very much.
The House Adjourned at 10:57 ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- Assent by President in respect of Bills
(1) Electoral Commission Amendment Bill [B 7 - 2004] - Act No 14 of
2004 (assented to and signed by President on 22 June 2004).
- Draft Bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159 (1) Immigration Amendment Bill, 2004, submitted by the Minister of Home Affairs on 24 June 2004. Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs and the Select Committee on Social Services.
National Assembly
- Membership of Committees
The following members have been appointed to the Joint Standing
Committee on Intelligence in terms of section 2 of the Intelligence
Services Control Act, 1994 (Act No 40 of 1994) on 24 June 2004:
Ms M P Mentor (ANC)
Ms H C Mgabadeli (ANC)
- Membership of Committees
(1) Mr L V J Ngculu has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Health with effect from 25 June 2004.
(2) Ms N R Ntshulana-Bhengu has been elected chairperson of the
Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government with
effect from 25 June 2004.
(3) Mr B M Komphela has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Sport and Recreation with effect from 25 June 2004.
(4) Dr R H Davies has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Finance with effect from 25 June 2004.
(5) Mr H P Chauke has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Home Affairs with effect from 25 June 2004.
(6) Ms O R Kasienyane has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Labour with effect from 25 June 2004.
(7) Mr D J Sithole has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Foreign Affairs with effect from 25 June 2004.
(8) Mr M K Lekgoro has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Communications with effect from 25 June 2004.
(9) Mr D V Bloem has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Correctional Services with effect from 25 June 2004.
(10) Prof A K Asmal has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Defence with effect from 25 June 2004.
(11) Prof S M Mayatula has been elected chairperson of the
Portfolio Committee on Education with effect from 25 June 2004.
(12) Mr E N N Ngcobo has been elected chairperson of the Portfolio
Committee on Science and Technology with effect from 25 June
2004.