+WEDNESDAY, 15 JUNE 2005 __

                PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

                                ____

The House met at 14:04.

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.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before we start our business this afternoon, I would like to welcome in Parliament today pupils from the Acacia Park Primary School, their educators and members of the governing body. [Applause.]

RULE 253(1) SUSPENDED FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING SECOND READING DEBATE ON TAXATION LAWS SECOND AMENDMENT BILL

                         (Draft Resolution)

The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move without notice: That Rule 253(1), which provides, inter alia, that the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill may not commence before at least three working days have elapsed since the committee’s report was tabled, be suspended for the purposes of conducting the Second Reading debate on the Taxation Laws Second Amendment Bill on Tuesday, 21 June 2005.

Agreed to.

                  CLOSE CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL


                       (Second Reading debate)

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers, hon Deputy Ministers, hon members of Parliament, I am honoured to table the Close Corporations Amendment Bill in the NA.

The Close Corporations Act commenced on 1 January 1985 and has been a very popular and successful corporate entity. This Act seeks to facilitate the formation and maintenance of a close corporation, a business vehicle used primarily by small businesses in South Africa. It is estimated that there are approximately 880 000 registered close corporations in South Africa, although an estimated half of those are active businesses.

In the policy on Corporate Law Reform, which was published for comment in June last year, the Department of Trade and Industry initially indicated its intention to review and replace both the Companies Act of 1973 and the Close Corporations Act.

However, pursuant to public consultation, and taking into consideration the large number of close corporations currently in existence, it seemed to us that a pragmatic approach is that for the foreseeable future the close corporation, as a separate corporate entity, should stay in business. So, rather than repealing the Close Corporations Act at this point, it is our intention to focus our reforms on the Companies Act. If we are successful in our reform, there will no longer be a need for the Close Corporations Act and its importance as a corporate form for small businesses will naturally decline.

This Bill must be seen in that context. It represents significant changes to the current law, but does not constitute a more holistic review of the Close Corporations Act. Given that the Close Corporations Act will not be affected in the main by the corporate law reform process, we envisage that a more extensive review of the Close Corporations Act may be required. I may therefore stand before you again in a year’s time, introducing another Close Corporations Amendment Bill to you.

This Bill deals with three main issues: the transfer of personal liability of members back to the close corporation after its re-registration; the provision for corporations to act as accounting officers; and the provision for a natural or a juristic person in the capacity of a trustee of a trust inter vivos to be entitled to membership of a corporation.

Allow me to explain each of these amendments in a bit more detail: Firstly, the Close Corporations Act provides that the liabilities of a close corporation are shared jointly and severally by its members after it’s deregistration. Recent case law has, however, established that even if the close corporation is reregistered, any business debt remains the personal liability of the members. It is our view that the courts should be empowered to make a case-by-case judgement about whether the personal liability should revert to the corporation and whether an individual member should be compensated by the corporation, if that member settled liabilities.

Secondly, the law as it stands is that persons acting in partnerships as accounting officers are compelled to sign reports by accounting officers as natural persons and in their individual capacity. The law does not recognise that persons who provide these services to close corporations may in themselves form small businesses. For this reason, the proposed amendments provide that a company or even a close corporation itself providing these services may be appointed as the accounting officer of a corporation.

Thirdly, section 29(1) of the Close Corporations Act precludes a juristic person or a trustee of an inter vivos trust to hold, directly or indirectly, a member’s interest in a corporation. However, subsections 2(b) and (c) respectively entitle a natural or a juristic person who is a trustee of a testamentary trust or an insolvent estate to membership of a corporation. This is an anomaly based on tax considerations, which are no longer relevant. Furthermore, there is no constitutional basis for justifying the discrimination between an inter vivos trust and a testamentary trust or an insolvent estate. The proposed amendments seek to address this anomaly.

In conclusion, I would like to thank members of the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry for their assistance in helping us to steer the legislation to this point and for their valuable contributions.

I should also pay a special thanks to the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Laws and members of the public for their inputs into these amendments and for their commitment to ensuring that our corporate law is appropriate, consistent and up to date.

I commend this Bill to the House. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr B A D MARTINS: Madam Deputy Speaker, Minister of Trade and Industry, I am glad to see that your health has improved . . . [Applause.] Welcome back to Parliament. Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, hon members, over the past 10 years the South African economy and the legislative framework have been subject to a programme of fundamental reform. The corporate law reform programme will further provide a comprehensive legal basis for galvanising the economy. It is in this context that corporations in various forms are central to South Africa’s economy and its prosperity for wealth creation and social renewal.

The Close Corporations Amendment Bill is brought to the NA in this context. In terms of section 26 of the Close Corporations Act of 1994, the Registrar of Close Corporations may deregister a close corporation under certain circumstances. Section 26(5) of the Act provides that members of such close corporations are jointly and severally liable for any outstanding liabilities at the time of deregistration. Section 26(6) of the Act, on the other hand, allows the Registrar to restore the registration of a deregistered close corporation under certain circumstances.

Furthermore, in terms of section 26(7) of the Act, a close corporation whose registration has been restored, shall continue to exist and be deemed to have continued in existence, as from the date of restoration, as if it had not been deregistered.

Amongst other factors, and in view of the judgment in the case of Mouton and Another v Boland Bank Ltd, 2001, the Close Corporations Amendment Bill seeks to prevent members from being prejudiced under certain circumstances.

Section 60(4) of the Bill provides that a firm, as defined in section 1 of the Public Accountants and Auditors Act of 1991, and any other firm may be appointed as an accounting officer of a corporation. The ANC supports the passage of this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr L B LABUSCHAGNE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to welcome the Minister; we do not often have the pleasure of seeing him here or at our committee meetings.

The legal arrangement of the close corporation has been of great benefit to the South African business community since it was introduced in 1984. It has allowed small and medium-sized businesses to operate with fewer regulatory requirements than companies, while enjoying the benefits of being a legal entity separate from their members; CCs can also be a vehicle for empowerment. I noticed when I served on the procurement committee at the Tshwane Metro, in my days as city councillor, that many black-owned CCs qualified for numerous tenders. The CC has been a boon for the emerging new entrepreneur and has given practical effect to the preferential procurement policy.

I am very glad that the intention is to keep the CCs separate from the other amendments to corporate law reform and we look forward to these proposals. The proposed amendments to the Close Corporations Act, dealing with the legal liabilities of members of close corporations, speaks positively to our sense of fairness, and has taken into account the appropriate case law.

Moreover the anomaly of previously including trusts testamentary and excluding trusts inter vivos has now been rectified. This suggests that changes regarding the criteria for the appointment to the role of accounting officer also meet with our approval; they are sensible and contribute, in a small way, to making the accounting requirements of a CC less burdensome.

It is a pity, then, that the government does not take further steps to help small business contribute towards our economic development. Instead, we are still burdened with red tape, unnecessary taxes and inappropriate labour regulations. If we consider the Seta levies, which are essentially a tax on employing people, the Setas are a drain on the pool of resources of small businesses, or CCs in general, that does not translate into material benefits for the vast majority of businesses that contribute towards this programme.

The problem is that the small businessperson does not often have the institutional resources to claim from the Setas. So, the only people who benefit generally are those who have the capacity to work the system. Instead of Setas, the government should concentrate on lowering the tax burden and improving the quality of secondary schooling.

The difficulty of firing someone under South African labour law has, instead of protecting the employed, simply made small firms and particular CCs unwilling to hire people in the first place. Despite the good intentions of these programmes, the results have been harmful to both small businesses and those in search of work.

One of the biggest challenges that South Africa faces is job creation. Now, irrespective of whether the true figure of unemployment is 20 million or 40 million, 20% or 40%, it is still far too high. Whether the President sees millions of unemployed in the streets or not, we ordinary South Africans, who actually live here, see a lot of it daily, and we know where the work- seekers congregate, even in our suburban areas.

So, maybe if our employment rate was higher we wouldn’t need to speak of the so-called first and second economies, and there would only be one economy – but unfortunately this is not the case.

Businesses, big and small, create jobs. While it seems that the government has the big picture - the Barclays buy-in and foreign investment, multinationals and black economic empowerment in the main - we in the DA believe that the government sometimes misses the smaller picture. Close corporations and other small firms do create jobs and employ a large percentage of the population; particularly those that may not have skills of a higher level to compete with larger enterprises.

It is therefore imperative that the government creates a friendly environment for small business to operate in; and this implies deregulation, reasonable constraints on union power and better education of the labour force. If you truly want small businesses and CCs to be a vehicle of economic growth and job creation, you need to lower the handbrake. Hopefully the ANC will discuss some of these measures at its indaba at the end of the month.

That said; the DA supports the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

Prof E S CHANG: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, chairperson of the committee and all my dear colleagues, it is indeed a pleasure to be debating another Bill in this House. Amidst this debate there has been much breast-beating over the vehicle price-fixing and the Competition Commission saga.

Perhaps the hon Minister will tell us exactly what is going on in this regard, or maybe we need another debate in this House on the Competition Act. Whether it is in the motor industry or the banking industry, too many media reports have flooded the front pages of our newspapers and our people need to know what the real issues are. The primary purpose of the Bill is to bring the Close Corporations Act into line with the Companies Amendment Bill of 2004. Therefore it is proposed to alter a number of clauses in the current Act.

According to the CPA, close corporations are an unimportant but overneglected business form. This is certainly true if one can see their contribution to the gross domestic product. Other recommendations in the Bill include retaining the close corporations, which allows for relatively cheap and easy company registrations. Removing this would burden small business with onerous disclosures and reporting requirements. Currently, there are about 1,1 million registered taxpaying businesses in South Africa and more than 1 000 primary companies, excluding their subsidiaries. This creates a huge degree of employment.

It is also a well-known fact that company law in other countries provides for similar company structures aimed at easing and simplifying more business. The IFP supports the principles of ethics and good corporate governance. This Bill, once enacted, will ensure that there is fairness to prejudiced members and more opportunities are created for CCs to participate as entities in the economy. In a spirit of ensuring fairness and corporate governance in the close corporation environment, the IFP will support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

Ms D M RAMODIBE: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, this Bill is merely a technical amendment to the Close Corporations Act. The hon Comrade Minister has already dealt with the substantive changes that this amendment will make to the Act, which leaves me free then to discuss how to form and operate close corporations in order to impact on our people, especially the poor and the previously disadvantaged.

In 1994, when we elected our first democratic government, we committed ourselves to creating a democratic society based on equity, equality, nonracialism and nonsexism in line with the Constitution and the Reconstruction and Development Programme. The South African government inherited company laws built on foundations which were put in place by the British in the middle of the 19th century.

The purpose of the Close Corporations Act then was to provide a simple, inexpensive business entity offering limited liability for a single person, enterprise or a small number of persons. The South African Companies Act of 1973 is about 30 years old and the review process is under way to reflect developments that have taken place in South Africa. Due to global competitiveness there is a need for higher standards of co-operative governance and ethics, as well as greater interdependence between enterprises and societies in which they operate. As we are all aware, the development of small and medium enterprises forms one of the pillars of the ANC’s plan to reduce unemployment and fight poverty. To do this, the ANC uses our mandate to put in place systems and laws that make it easier for our people to start their own businesses and take advantage of this new dispensation.

The Close Corporations Amendment Bill was supposed to have been piloted simultaneously with the Companies Amendment Bill in 2004, but due to some administrative bulk it could not.

Close corporations are by their nature easier to start and more accessible to the ordinary person in the street and in the rural areas. There is a lot less administrative work in starting and operating a close corporation and it requires considerably less initial capital investment than some forms of business. It thus becomes easier for our people who, as a result of history, have less access to the resources and training to start their businesses to enter into the business arena.

It is a well-known fact that more than 50% of South Africa’s employment is provided by small and medium-sized enterprises. It is also a well-known fact that this sector has the potential to generate even more employment and income than it currently does, and the ANC is doing everything it can to assess and develop this potential.

This situation becomes especially important when one considers the significant number of informal businesses and individual traders amongst our people. Where especially women and the youth are in a position to pool their resources and expertise, this could place them in a position to broaden their business operations and offer employment to other members of their communities.

Amendments are not only consistent with the Constitution of South Africa and the principles of equality and fairness that it enshrines, but also with other laws that have been passed, including the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act.

Government will continue to regulate or intervene to protect its citizens, as well as promote economic growth. According to the Keynes’ school of thought, the economy cannot be left to the market, as it does not have inherent mechanisms for self-adjustment.

The ANC supports the Bill, and I thank you.

Mr K D S DURR: Deputy Speaker, these are technical amendments, which are often as dry as dust, but they are really part of the evolution of the use and development of the close corporations as a legal entity.

Some of the amendments flow from court cases, for example, the case of Mouton and Another v Boland Bank Ltd, 2001. They also follow upon the advice of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law that advised the Minister to effect the amendment that arose in the case of Mouton, to put beyond doubt the ability to recover liabilities previously settled by any member.

If an action by a creditor on reregistration is not yet initiated, it should be directed to the reregistered corporation. It really is a measure in the interests of fairness, as my hon colleague Ramodibe has just mentioned.

The Bill also expands the scope of the definition of the membership of a close corporation by allowing the trustee of an inter vivos trust to become a member of a CC. This also widens the scope of the close corporation and levels the playing field between different forms of trustees, namely trustees of testamentary trust and inter vivos trusts, and insolvent estates.

Again, this widens the scope and increases the application of the CC as a vehicle and that must be good. Additionally, a close corporation cannot appoint another CC as an accounting officer. Now the CC will be able to conduct the business of an accounting officer – once more expanding the use and scope of the CC.

Those of us who believe in public free enterprise - no, private free enterprise - know that the limited liability private company and, since the 80s, the CC have been major locomotives of economic expansion. These devices have been foremost in the whole process of wealth creation. It is good that we keep refining, adapting and expanding their use. It is a contribution to wealth creation in South Africa, and that must be the main focus of all of us who are trying to build this country.

The ACDP supports this Bill. I thank you.

Ms S RAJBALLY: Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers and members, having viewed the Bill’s provisions regarding the registration and deregistration of close corporations, we acknowledge the loophole experienced in Mouton and Another v Boland Bank Ltd, 2001(3) SA 877 (SLA) Savings and Loan Association as to whether or not the restoration of a close corporation affects a members’ liability under section 26(5) of the Act, that is if the liability remains undischarged at the date of restoration of the close corporation’s registration.

And in view of the court’s judgement, the MF accepts the amendments to section 26(7) of the Act, as set out in this amendment, as this shall now prevent the prejudice of members under certain circumstances. The MF further, in view of members charged for legal liability in terms of section 26(5), accepts the orders under which they may apply to a court for relief. The terms regarding section 60(4) in terms of accounting officers of the Act are also accepted.

Furthermore, the advice extended by the Standing Committee on the Company Law to the Department of Trade and Industry is also accepted and acknowledged.

The MF supports the Close Corporation Amendment Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

Prof B TUROK: Deputy Speaker, I cannot resist but respond to the hon colleague, Mr Labuschagne, who knew that I was going to comment and so he left the Chamber. [Interjections.]

Hon MEMBERS: No, no, no! He is here.

Prof B TUROK: Oh, he is sitting there. Thank you - fine. Please listen carefully. We were told that we need deregulation. We have discussed this issue on several occasions. The hon member doesn’t understand the difference between deregulation and simplifying regulation.

We have discussed these issues with the department on many occasions and, indeed, I think the whole country understands that we do need to simplify the whole process of creating small enterprises. We need to get rid of some blockages here and there, but that is not the same as deregulation. Deregulation favours the strong. Simplified regulation favours the weak.

So, this is the Bill that is intended to help small industry, small enterprise and small business people all over the country. Yes, we want to simplify the regulations. We want to reduce the burden on people who wish to establish CCs, but we do not want to deregulate, because if we do deregulate it will favour the strong and that is not what we are about.

I want to refer to a document, which the DTI has given us. It is a document called “Companies, Close Corporations and Corporate Information.” It is a very handy little document. It lists the various kinds of entities and instruments that people can use in the creation of small enterprise.

Clearly, the DTI is anxious that people should be familiar with the range of possibilities, so that they can choose in accordance with what they wish to do. Something needs to be added to this document. I hope the DTI will publish another version - useful as this may be - which includes the question of co-operatives. This House recently passed the Co-operatives Bill, and this indicates the extent to which the DTI, and indeed the ruling party, wishes to offer a range of possibilities for people in the townships and rural areas who wish to engage in small enterprise.

We want to simplify all these processes. Now, in the close corporation section of this particular document, we are told that there are two documents that are required for registration and the Bill certainly deals with the question of registration. A person wanting to start a close corporation will have to pay R50 for the reservation of the name and R100 for the founding statement – fairly simply business.

However, when you look at the larger companies - and indeed I will refer to that later on, the incorporation of private and public companies – you have a whole page of reports, of certificates and processes with a fair amount of money involved. I would ask the DTI to look once again at this very useful document and see which of these certificates and registrations can be eliminated, and so on.

Clearly, I agree with my colleague Labuschgne that we want to simplify regulations - and I hope that he accepts my argument that that is quite different - to deregulate the economy in the interests of free market, capitalism and all that stuff. We have heard it so often. Now, a close corporation is a very flexible instrument. Some of us that have worked in academia know that certain academics will start a little close corporation, which is a sideline for their consultancies, where they can, perhaps, avoid tax and manipulate the system.

This is quite common and because of that we find that there are 880 000 close corporations compared to – listen to the figures, Mr Labuschgne, because you didn’t get that in the committee – the 300 000 private companies and 6 000 public companies. This means that this is a very popular vehicle for whatever reason, whether it’s the skelms [crooks] trying to avoid tax, or it’s some professionals who’ve got several little companies, or a small businessman who is trying to persuade a whole lot of people and who has a letterhead with a number of names on it and he can pull out whatever letterhead is mostly appropriate for the occasion.

I think we have all met businessmen who would look at you and say, well, card A will suit you whilst he has three or four other cards in his pocket. In that way he is assessing your needs and what sort of relationship he could have with you. This is why we have so many close corporations.

I want to place the close corporation in context. We now have six different instruments that industries and entrepreneurs can link up with. I want to quickly run through them for the benefit of those members who are interested in this kind of stuff and maybe there are one or two people listening at home on the TV who are interested in being entrepreneurs.

Firstly, we have the CC. Often it has one person as a member, which is suitable for professionals or small businessmen. The maximum is apparently between one and 10 members, as laid down in the principal Act of 1984. It is a company for profit. It has limited liability and limits on credit. One of the difficulties of a CC is that members are not individually liable. Fundamentally this puts some limit to credit and to finance, because their personal collaterals are not at stake. There is also some difficulty in pooling resources on a large scale, because the CC is essentially a small company.

However, when we come to the Section 21 company – and I want to contrast the CC with the Section 21 company - this is a non-profit company. It also has limited liability and has legal status. I should have said that one of the reasons people go for a close corporation rather than just doing business in the backyard or on the side is because they then have formal status, and we encourage people to do that – to set up CCs.

It is so important, and we must tell our people in the townships and in the backyards that are doing small bits of business here and there, that if they want to become real businesspersons they must register and have formal status.

One of the advantages of a Section 21 company, which is nonprofit, is that it is formal and has status because it has a registration, a constitution and the rest and, I think, we really must explain to our people that they cannot just continue doing things in their backyard without some official vote of legitimacy. This is what this Bill is offering.

From the Section 21 company one moves to partnerships. This is available for people numbering between two and 20. This is for profit and it has joint and several liabilities.

Then we go up the scale to a proprietary limited, or Pty Ltd. A Pty Ltd can have seven to 50 shareholders – it’s a much bigger entity. It is profit motivated. Here there are certain registration costs and various problems. I can tell you that in my own constituency a number of my constituents, who happened to be building workers, artisans and subcontractors, had great difficulty in setting up a Pty Ltd to gain credibility and legitimacy, and they had to do it. You can’t get a government tender if you are not a registered company.

And we must tell our people who have these aspirations, because suddenly they think that because of black economic empowerment, affirmative action and all the rest, they can just cordially go to government and expect a tender over the counter in a minute. You can’t. You’ve got to have official status, have some standing and a certificate before you can get a government tender. Government will not simply give a tender to somebody in a backyard.

So, the message from this session here is that government is trying not to overregulate, but to simplify matters and put people in some sort of formal relationship to the economy so that they are legitimate and able to open a bank account, so as to get credit and be taken seriously by government.

So, I would say that this Bill, although technically a minor one, actually represents a major initiative on the part of the DTI to create one more instrument whereby poor people in the townships and in rural areas can begin to establish themselves in a proper, formal way, and that is what we need to make progress. Thank you. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker and all of the members for the support for this Bill. Indeed, I think that hon Ben Turok has really dealt with the issues that the hon Labuschagne was raising, because it must be understood that there is a process that is going on to look at the issue of reducing the regulatory and compliance burden on small businesses, and that is something that is taking place across the board. It’s looking at a whole range of areas, including our labour legislation, our tax dispensation and so on.

There is that process that is going on. It’s a comprehensive process, which, as I say, is taking place across a number of areas. But it is also important to say that it’s an issue we’ve got to approach responsibly as well so that, in trying to lighten the regulatory burden on small businesses, it doesn’t result in other abuses actually taking place, because the issue of protection of people in the workplace is an important one for us, especially given the history of this country. So we’ve got to approach that issue quite responsibly, not to mean that you will trample on the rights of working people.

And part of the objective that we have is to increase the contribution of small businesses to post-gross domestic product, to the overall gross production in the economy, but also to the creation of jobs. And we will only do that if we successfully tackle the second economy challenges, as well as some of the anomalies that are still there in our society; access to finance is a major problem, and issues around skills and the experience of running entities.

Those are some of the issues that we need to tackle in order to open up space, because South Africa doesn’t lack entrepreneurship, but what you typically find is that people will start small-scale activities and they’ve got no way of breaking out of that mould of being very informal and being micro. We’ve got to create an environment where it’s possible for them, having started their small-scale activities, to be able to grow and graduate to become bigger if they want to.

Yes, hon Chang, the issue about competition and a competitive environment is an issue that we are also paying attention to. There are a number of things that we trying to do to make sure that we can promote competition in the economy, because the South African economic environment is still not sufficiently competitive, and in that situation it tends to become hostile towards small players and new entrants. There are things that we are addressing in a number of areas as well.

Hon Ramodibe, I think that in agreeing with you on the role of CCs and the opportunity presented by CCs it’s also important that we promote good use of close corporations and try as much as possible to prevent the abuse, to which the hon Ben Turok referred, because there are people who are abusing the system, the dispensation of close corporations, to avoid paying tax and for all other kinds of shenanigans.

But I think our objective must be to promote the good use of CCs as an opportunity for people to get into initiatives that get them involved in business, create opportunities and so on.

I agree, hon Turok, that going forward, reporting on co-operatives must be part of what we do, because this is a new form or an alternative form of enterprise that we are promoting. You would have been a participant in the debate last week. I wasn’t here, but clearly we are aiming for the Co- operative Bill to open up the scope for co-operatives, where historically these have tended to be focused on agriculture. Through this Bill we are actually opening up a whole new number of areas for co-operatives to enter.

Part of what we are also trying to do is to make sure that some of the financing vehicles that we have in government support the growth of co- operatives and so we would expect the Apex Fund to do something to support co-operatives. We expect the National Empowerment Fund to do something. We actually asked them to create a special instrument to support co- operatives. So, certainly this is going to be a very important form of enterprise, which will give opportunity for livelihood to a much wider range of people. So it is important for us to remain really focused on active and vigorous promotion of co-operatives.

On the issue you raised of the compliance burden on the larger businesses, let me just say that I don’t know if we have had the opportunity to brief the committee on it, but we have undertaken this investment climate survey, which has started to give us some important results about our investment and business environment in South Africa. It’s a very focused survey which really addresses itself to the things which influence investors to make or not make decisions, and also to what the experience is in our own business environment.

One of the things that has come forth from that preliminary report, which we are processing at the moment, is that the compliance burden on your larger businesses and your export-oriented businesses tends to be more burdensome than on the other categories. So we are processing that report with a view to actually beginning to address those issues. Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all hon members and the members of the portfolio committee. Thank you very much.

Debate concluded.

Bill read second time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, we are also joined today by a former member, Mr Dave Dalling. Welcome to the House. [Applause.]

The House adjourned at 16:46. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism (1) The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 6 June 2005 in terms of Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bill as a section 75 Bill:

   (i) Defence Special Account Amendment Bill [B 15 – 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75)

National Assembly

1. The Speaker

 Mr C Nqakula has been appointed as Leader of Government Business in the
National Assembly with effect from 15 June 2005, in terms of section
91(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act
No. 108 of 1996).

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Assembly

1. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Defence on the Defence Special Account Amendment Bill [B 15 - 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 14 June 2005:

   The Portfolio Committee on Defence, having considered the subject of the Defence Special Account Amendment Bill [B 15 - 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, reports the Bill without amendment.

2. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development on the Children’s Bill [B 70 – 2003 (Reintroduced)] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 14 June 2005: The Portfolio Committee on Social Development, having considered the subject of the Children’s Bill [B 70 - 2003 (Reintroduced)] (National Assembly – sec 75), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a section 75 Bill, presents the Children’s Bill [B 70B - 2003].

3. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Transport on the National Ports Bill [B 5D - 2003] (National Assembly – sec 75), dated 15 June 2005:

   The Portfolio Committee on Transport, having considered the National Ports Bill [B 5D – 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75) and a proposed amendment from the National Council of Provinces (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 27 May 2005, p 1072), referred to the Committee, reports the Bill with an amendment [B 5E - 2003].

4. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology, dated 14 June 2005:

   The Portfolio Committee on Science and Technology, having considered and examined Budget Vote 31 - Science and Technology, reports that it has concluded its deliberations thereon.

5. Report of the Portfolio Committee on Transport on Accession to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf, dated 8 June 2005:

   The Portfolio Committee on Transport, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Accession to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf, referred to it, recommends that the House, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Convention and Protocol.

   Request to be considered.