National Assembly - 22 June 2005
WEDNESDAY, 22 JUNE 2005
____
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:03.
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.
GREETINGS TO MULTIPARTY DELEGATION FROM CÔTE D’IVOIRE
(Draft Resolution)
- The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, I hereby move without notice, that:
That the House -
(1) expresses warm greetings to our friends from Côte d’Ivoire who are visiting our country as a multi-party group;
(2) hopes that their visit to South Africa will benefit both them and us in that we believe that all Africans, whether from the south or from the west of Africa, can only learn from one other and benefit from contact and friendship; and
(3) expresses on behalf of all South Africans its sincere hope that the negotiations in their country are successful and that their country is transformed into a vibrant multi-party democracy.
Agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, as we welcome the delegation from Côte d’Ivoire, I would like to share with members of the House that we have had excellent meetings with the delegation since this morning, and they are still going to be meeting with other sections of our Parliament this afternoon. So as soon as they are ready, we will allow them to take leave of the House.
We welcome you and we hope that you have gained as much as we have gained from this experience. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
In French we say: “Merci beaucoup.”
CONDOLENCES TO FAMILY OF Mr D D QEQE
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker . . . ndiphakamisa ngaphandle kwesindululo:
Ukuba le Ndlu –
(1) iqaphele ngosizi nangentlungu ukusweleka kukaMnu Daniel Dumile Qeqe ngomhla wama-20 kule nyanga imiyo;
(2) ikhumbule kakuhle ukuba uMnu Qeqe wazalelwa eBhofolo ngonyaka ka- 1929. Uthe akugqiba uqeqesho lobutitshala ngo-1953 waba yinqununu kwisikolo samabanga aphantsi iFord. Wayengumdlali obalaseleyo womdlalo weqakamba, ekwangumdlali obalaseleyo wombhoxo;
(3) ikhumbule ukuba uMnu Qeqe nguye owathi waseka iqela iKwazakhele Rugby Union, iKwaru, ngo-1971;
(4) ikhumbule ukuba ebesoloko edlala indima ephambili ekulweni ucalucalulo kwezemidlalo;
(5) iyamkele into yokuba uMnu Qeqe yenye yeenkokeli ebeziphume izandla, ekwadlala indima yokucebisa nokuqinisa abantu kwindawo ebehlala kuyo. EbengumKrestu oqinisekileyo, engumntu othanda uxolo; (6) iqwalasele igalelo lakhe elikhulu alenzileyo ekuphuculeni ezemidlalo. Ubawo uMongameli wokuqala, uNelson Mandela, waye wamwonga ngeSilver Presidential Sports Award;
(7) iqwalasele ukuba uMnu Qeqe ushiya ngemva imbali entle yokusebenzela abantu;
(8) idlulise uvelwano olunzulu kwizihlobo nezalamane zikabawo uQeqe, nakubantu bonke abamaziyo.
[That the House –
1) notes with sadness the passing on of Mr Daniel Dumile Qeqe on 20
June 2005;
(2) remembers very clearly that Mr Qeqe was born in Fort Beaufort in 1929. When he completed his training as a teacher in 1953, he occupied a position as a headmaster of Ford Primary School. He displayed excellent skills as a cricket player as well as a rugby player;
(3) remembers him as the person who first formed the Kwazakhele Rugby Union, commonly known as Kwaru, in 1971;
4) remembers that he played a very significant role in fighting racism
in sport;
(5) accepts that Mr Qeqe was one of the great leaders our country had as he also played a parenting and counselling role in his community. He was a devout Christian and loved peace;
(6) notes his contribution to the development of sport. The first president, Dr Nelson Mandela, honoured him with a Silver Presidential Sports Award;
(7) notes that Mr Qeqe leaves behind a good history of working with people;
(8) extends its deepest condolences to his family, relatives, friends and all those who knew him.]
MEMBERS’STATEMENTS
CELEBRATIONS OF THE FREEDOM CHARTER
(Member’s Statement)
Mr D A A OLIFANT (ANC): Madam Speaker, on 26 June 2005, 50 years later, at the square and place where the Freedom Charter was adopted in 1955, 40 000 people will, once more, gather to commemorate and celebrate the historic People’s Assembly which adopted the Freedom Charter. Over 40 000 people will gather to mark the historic moment and it will be people from all national groups, black and white, united in our diversity, young and old, those veterans who were part of the 1955 gathering, people from different political persuasions, religions, business, traditional leaders, the youth and student formations, nongovernmental organisations, civil society, women groups, cultural groups, sport, public representatives in Parliament, legislatures, municipalities and civil society organisations. The following day, 27 June 2005, Parliament will assemble with thousands of people and in a people’s assembly bring various sections of society to give them a platform to voice their opinions. Unfortunately, a minority of organisations in our country, namely the DA, the IFP, the FF Plus, decided once more, like their predecessors in 1955, not to attend this historic event. Once more they refuse to be part of this people’s march to build on the foundation of the Freedom Charter. The ANC says: No force will deter or stop the people in their gallant march. South Africa truly belongs to all its people, united in their diversity. I thank you. [Applause.]
ARMS DEAL
(Member’s Statement)
Mr E W TRENT (DA): Madam Speaker, President Mbeki was chair of the ministerial committee in charge of the arms deal. He must therefore take responsibility for the fact that Chippy Shaik was allowed to meet in secret with a number of bidders in the arms procurement process; this, despite Shaik’s declared conflict of interest. Shaik’s involvement polluted the arms deal and violated all normal tender procedures. Perhaps the reason for President Mbeki’s failure to sanction Shaik was that he himself was also meeting with bidders in secret. The DA is in possession of an encrypted fax, which suggests that Pres Mbeki promised Thompson CSF as early as 1997 that they would be awarded the contract . . . [Interjections.] . . . Here are the faxes and you can have a look at them, if you wish to. Another fax indicates that President Mbeki held a secret meeting with executives from Thompson CSF in December 1998, in complete violation of tender procedures. President Mbeki needs to explain why such a meeting took place, why there is no public record of such a meeting and were Thompson CSF guaranteed the Corvette contract? Unless the President breaks his silence, the public will justifiably be thinking that corruption in the arms deal extends beyond Mr Jacob Zuma. [Applause.]
Mr D V BLOEM: I don’t think it is fair for this member to attack the President in his absence. I think he must make that statement when the President is here. I don’t think it is correct for him and he must prove that information.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, with due respect, that is not a point of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ellis, please take your seat. Hon members, I don’t think that you were as attentive as I thought I was when this member raised this point. It is a question and it is supposed to be a statement. I think I would be allowed time to study the Hansard. This being the last day of our sitting, I would like to come back and make a ruling today. Part of the statement implies that the President is engaged in some kind of activity. That is what I heard. I think that is the part that I want to make a ruling on.
Secondly, I also appeal to Whips that there is an opportunity for the President to answer questions in the House. [Interjections.] Hon member, you don’t sit on the programming committee. There are Whips of your party who sit in that committee and we were informed that the President wouldn’t be here to answer questions tomorrow, because he is engaged in Cote d’ Ivoire - which we respect. If your Whips did not inform you that the President won’t be here and we were given an undertaking by the President’s Office that he will make sure there is an extra slot. It is not that the President does not want to answer questions. To pose a question to a President who is not here is unfair and irresponsible. I would like to come back to that point. I don’t think that it is fair for you to be saying the kind of things you did about the head of state in his absence. I will make a ruling later this afternoon.
NON-DELIVERY OF LEARNER SUPPORT MATERIAL
(Member’s Statement)
Mr A M MPONTSHANE (IFP): Deputy Speaker, we are now six months into the academic year. Grade 12 learners ought to be writing their mid-year examinations. We know that some of these learners will be or are writing these examinations under very difficult and inhuman conditions which are exemplified by, inter alia, not being electrified, freezingly cold and in some instances, leaking classroom roofs and no sanitary facilities.
Of immediate concern to the IFP is the nondelivery of learner support material. The reasons for nondelivery are many and varied. However, nondelivery caused by the failure of provincial departments to pay service providers must rank as the most intolerable.
The Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal are the most delinquent provinces in this regard. We therefore urge the Minister to use her monitoring whip to ensure that these avoidable barriers do not compromise the end educational product. I thank you.
JOB OPPORTUNITIES TO BE CREATED IN AREA BETWEEN UGIE AND MACLEAR
(Member’s Statement)
Nkskz X C MAKASI (ANC): Sekela-Somlomo, umzi ovelisa impahla yendlu wakwa-P G Bison, onxulumene nowakwa-Steinhof, uzibandakanye kwiphulo lotyalo-mali oluthe xhaxhe kwibhiliyoni yeerandi. Olu tyalo-mali luya kuqhutywa phakathi kweDyoki neMaclear, kwiphondo laseMpuma Koloni. Kulindeleke ukuba ludale amathuba emisebenzi angama-3 000.
Le nto ithetha ukuba wagwetywa ndlala. Umbutho i-ANC uyasiseka kwaye usithakazelela esi sigqibo senziwe ngulo mzi-mveliso ukhankanywe ngentla apha. Eli nyathelo liya kubangela ukuba kubekho utyalo-mali, kwaye lukhule uqoqosho kule ngingqi.
Lo mzi uya kuthi uvelise impahla yendlu eya kuthi ithengiselwe amanye amashishini akhoyo apha eMzantsi Afrika, kwaye ijonge nokwandisa urhwebelwano namanye amazwe. Ndiyabulela, Sekela-Somlomo. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa member’s statement follows.)
[Mrs X C MAKASI (ANC): Deputy Speaker, the PG Bison furniture factory together with Steinhof are involved in an investment initiative that costs about R1 billion. This is an investment initiative between Ugie and Maclear in the Eastern Cape province. It is expected that this will create about 3000 job opportunities.
This will assist in eradicating poverty. The ANC supports and is enthusiastic about this decision by the above-mentioned factory. The initiative will create investment and will result in economic growth in this area.
The factory will produce furniture that will be sold to other businesses in South Africa, and it is also looking at extending business to other countries. Thank you. [Applause.]]
FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES IN SAA
(Member’s Statement)
Mr J J M STEPHENS (UDM): Madam Deputy Speaker, the UDM is disturbed by the report in the Business Day today that SA Airways cannot account for approximately R60 million. Fraud is suspected, and some executives allegedly abused the payroll system in order to claim exorbitant overtime and bonuses for ghost employees.
The provisions of the Public Finance Management Act regarding irregular expenditure must now be strictly enforced. If indeed it has the information implied in the article, SAA must not hesitate to bring criminal charges against its former CEO, Mr Viljoen, and his executive team.
The unequivocal message to officials in the civil service and public enterprises must be that abuse of taxpayer money will not be tolerated. We urge SAA to act swiftly, given its poor record on financial matters in the recent past. First taxpayers forked out a ridiculous golden handshake to former SAA boss Coleman Andrews, in effect rewarding him for poor performance. Then SAA was investigated for uncompetitive behaviour, followed by the revelation of a massive so-called hedging loss, totalling billions of rands. SAA also continues to dominate the market for inbound foreign travellers, and there its failure to provide adequate capacity is stifling our tourism industry.
This litany of mismanagement, financial disasters and dubious practices has turned government’s leading and most profitable transport enterprise into a farce.
The current international aviation environment is unforgiving in the wake of 9/11 and rocketing fuel costs. Serious remedies are urgently required to prevent further losses to the taxpayer and to the destruction of what should be a valuable national asset.
NEW EDUCATION CURRICULUM AND FET COLLEGES
(Member’s Statement)
Adv A H GAUM (NNP): Madam Deputy Speaker, we are satisfied that the Education department is increasingly meeting the challenge of ensuring that the implementation of the new FET curriculum will be a success and not a failure.
Their careful approach is borne out by the fact that there will be a phased implementation and that schools will be allowed to offer the new learning areas only if they can demonstrate their ability to do so. Pronouncements that the new curriculum will require a higher level of cognitive skills from learners and that the achievement bar will be lifted, not lowered, is reason for great optimism about the future of our education system.
We also welcome the recapitalisation process of our further education and training colleges. This will help to create the much-needed emphasis shift to vocational training that is so vital to meet the needs of our economy.
These colleges should also play a key role in tackling unemployment head- on. The Minister and the department have to be congratulated on their thorough preparation in ensuring that the recapitalisation process runs smoothly, and that the FET colleges become the agents for skills development they ought to be.
We are particularly heartened by the fact that research is being conducted to ascertain the needs of the economy, and that appropriate courses will be designed to meet these needs. I thank you.
LACK OF BASIC SERVICES IN KLIPTOWN
(Member’s Statement)
Rev K R J MESHOE (ACDP): Deputy Speaker, the ACDP believes that the choice of Kliptown as the place to hold the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Charter is unwise and insensitive on the part of government, particularly because Kliptown is an extremely underdeveloped community. The more than R500 million the government plans to use for these celebrations should rather have been used to develop infrastructure, provide basic services and proper sanitation for all the needy people of Kliptown. [Interjections.]
The dignity of many Kliptown residents is undermined, as they are still subjected to the humiliating and unhygienic bucket system because of the lack of sanitation in the area, sadly 11 years after the coming into being of the new democratic order.
That is why the ACDP cannot, in good conscience, be part of what we believe is unnecessary and unwise government expenditure in an area that urgently needs proper toilets. [Interjections.]
We believe that proper basic services and proper sanitation is more important and urgently needed than wasting taxpayers’ money on a two-day party.
The ACDP supports the position taken by the Kliptown Concerned Residents Committee, which has said, and I quote:
There is nothing to celebrate since their areas have remained underdeveloped.
This committee was reported to have given the celebrations a thumbs-down and is planning to convene what it calls a people’s inspection to publicly expose what it calls the ``wretched living conditions of the community’’, and to garner support and solidarity for the community struggles around basic services.
ARRESTS BY POLICE IN GRABOUW
(Member’s Statement)
Mr J D ARENDSE (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, in the early hours of yesterday morning, the hard work of the SA Police Service, together with the co- operation of our communities, led to the arrest of six men in Grabouw.
Police have received information that they were on their way to commit crime. They were found in possession of four illegal firearms, which were all taken for ballistics tests to check whether they were used in other serious violent crimes.
One of the six arrested men has been positively identified as a person who committed a murder in the Grabouw area earlier this month, and he will be charged for the crime. The provision of security and comfort to our families and communities is the cornerstone policy of the ANC-led government to provide a better life for all our people.
The recent breakthroughs in the investigations and the progressive reduction in violent crime are because of the close working relationship between the SA Police Service and the communities.
The ANC applauds the continuing good work being done by the Police and calls upon our communities to work tirelessly for the realisation of peace and security for all our people. [Applause.]
MURDER OF BABY JORDAN AND LACK OF CRIME STATISTICS
(Member’s Statement)
Mr R JANKIELSOHN (DA): Deputy Speaker, the brutal and senseless murder of six-month-old baby, Jordan Lee Norton, in Cape Town and the murder of Larry Webster, who was tied up with twine and strangled at his home in Belfast, are but two of many tragic and unnecessary murders that have taken place in South Africa recently.
South Africans, however, will not know the true reality of crime in this country until the Minister of Safety and Security releases crime statistics. The last statistics available are more than a year old. People have a right to know the type and frequency of crimes committed in their neighbourhoods. This information should be made available to them on a regular basis, which will enable individuals and communities to take precautions against criminals.
The only available information that the public receive on crime in South Africa is by reading about the gruesome murders and other crimes in the press, or through their own experiences of crime. Our high levels of crime such as murder clearly indicate that government is failing in its core duty to protect its citizens from harm. The very least it can do is inform people about crimes in their areas on a regular basis so that they can do for themselves what government is failing to do, namely protect themselves and their families from harm. Thank you. [Applause.]
DEPLOYMENT OF MOBILE POLICE STATIONS
(Member’s Statement)
Ms S RAJBALLY (MF): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, we take this opportunity to applaud the South African Police Service and the wonderful service they are delivering to the people of KwaZulu-Natal. We understand that, although this year’s budget has facilitated better resources and manpower in the sector, at the moment the situation at stations need serious attention.
However, the MF interest extends beyond this, to newly developed residential areas in KwaZulu-Natal, where local police are stationed a distance away and therefore unable to address emergencies as rapidly and efficiently as it is needed. In view of this and our constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety of our people, we call for the deployment of mobile police stations in these areas to secure the safety and wellbeing of our people and also deter criminals from crime. We urge that the department and House work towards these safety measures to combat crime and ensure safety of all South African citizens, in every corner of South Africa. Thank you.
DEVELOPMENT OF RUGBY PLAYERS
(Member’s Statement)
Mr M M DIKGAWCI (ANC): Thank you, Madam Speaker, an English under-13 rugby team from Manchester England has donated R42 000 to the development of young rugby players of their age from the former disadvantaged communities. The donation was given to Diocesan college in Rondebosch in Cape Town, which is responsible for developing the young talent. The direct beneficiaries of this donation will be children from Liwa Primary school and John Palma Primary, both from Nyanga East. When making the donation, the management of the English team said, “We have chosen to make the donation to college because the players have demonstrated natural talent despite their backgrounds.”
The ANC applause this material gesture of human solidarity and we call on business and civil society to join in the people’s contract to bridge the disparities created by our apartheid past. Let us all work together to ensure the continual opening of the doors of learning and culture to all South Africans. I thank you.
ANC’S ABUSE OF FREEDOM CHARTER CELEBRATIONS
(Member’s Statement)
MOULANA M R SAYEDALI-SHAH (DA): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the ANC’s attempt to portray the sitting of Parliament in Kliptown, for three hours next Monday, as a nonparty activity is an abuse of power and an abuse of taxpayers’ money. Even the information booklet on this event, which was given to MPs, is printed in the ANC colours of yellow, green and black and the logo used to symbolize this event is taken from the ANC’s party logo. Madam Speaker, the ANC intends using the Freedom Charter in its election campaign later this year. And the party is abusing its power by spending far more than five million rand of taxpayers’ money to publicise this campaign. Therefore, the DA understands the significance of the Freedom Charter and we do not object to the Charter itself, but to the manner and the purpose for which the ANC has resuscitated it at the taxpayer’s expense and to suit its own political agenda. Therefore, the DA was asked to give this event a veneer of legitimacy by participating in Kliptown, but instead we will hold a people’s assembly in Cape Town aimed at hearing whether the promises of the ANC have been fulfilled, especially in terms of the Freedom Charter. Thank you. [Applause.]
CULTURAL EVENTS IN KWAZULU-NATAL
(Member’s Statement)
Ms M M MDLALOSE (IFP): Madam Deputy Speaker, the following cultural events have been held recently in Durban: the Comrades marathon, which is an example of human endurance; the Durban Fashion Week, which focuses on art and creativity; the World Chamber of Commerce Congress as well as several film festivals. The IFP wants to add its support of these events because they encourage development of the people, the economy and also promote social cohesion and comradeship in KwaZulu-Natal. Thank you.
PARLIAMENTARY FILM FESTIVAL WEEK
(Member’s Statement)
Ms N D MBOMBO (ANC): The week of 12 to 19 June was Parliament Film Festival week. It is the first of its kind in the world to be hosted by a parliament. I congratulate the Parliamentary millennium project, the Department of Arts and Culture and the National Film and Video Foundation for initiating such a groundbreaking and informative event. And to our South African actors, directors and film makers for portraying professionalism, class and their significant contribution to the success of this project. I thank you, Deputy Madam Speaker.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSES
BREAKTHROUGH IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CRIME
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Deputy Speaker, there have been some comments or statements about the police and the issue of crime in our country. I serve on that Justice, Correctional and Police Services (JCPS) cluster, and it is one cluster that I know works very hard and very well. I must therefore commend the hard work of the police. We have men and women in uniform that we are very proud of as a government. We also commend the communities who work very closely with our police, to apprehend any criminals that commit crime.
We as a government will be hard in dealing with crime, as we have adopted a zero tolerance to crime in our country. We will do everything as a government to assist the police in their duties in keeping our communities safe and peaceful. The hon Rajbally, I will pass on your concerns to my colleague, the Minister of Safety and Security, about the area that you referred to, where the police station is a little bit further from the people.
We also commend the police on the breakthroughs that they have made in curbing crime and in making sure that those who use illegal firearms and weapons are arrested, and our heartfelt condolences to the family of the baby who got murdered in Cape Town. Such gruesome acts should not be happening to young children, neither should they be happening to any of our citizens. I thank you.
FET ARRANGMENTS, KZN SCHOOLS, THE FREEDOM CHARTER
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me to thank the hon members who have shown the great benefit they derived from the recent briefing by the Education Department on the Further Education and Training (FET) arrangements that the department has been working on for the past few months. I am glad that members have taken on the hard work that has been done by the department, and I shall certainly convey the sentiments to them.
In respect of the hon member from the IFP and the statement that the member made, let me say that we are working very hard to overcome the inheritance that we received from the mismanagement of education by that party for the years in which it was in government in KwaZulu-Natal and heading the education department in that province. You may wave your finger, shake your head, but we had MECs from that party. The sanitation was not handled at that time, classrooms were not built and teachers were not adequately supported. We are dealing with all of that and MEC Cronjé is working hard to correct the dismal record that is part of what we inherited.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say that in this House there are parties that have no history of struggle worth recording or referring to, but sadly, Madam Deputy Speaker, there appear to be parties in this House which, in fact, not only have no history of struggle but they are indeed ahistorical in their recollection of the history of South Africa. [Applause.] The statements being made about the Freedom Charter are absolutely laughable. The notion that the ANC is resuscitating the Charter is absolutely ridiculous. The Charter carried us, it sustained us through the struggle, it took us to where we are today, it is reflected in our Constitution . . . [Applause.] . . . and it has been our rock. [Applause.]
Of course I understand absolutely that parties that had no role in our struggle for freedom would have no interest in recognising or celebrating the Freedom Charter. We shall celebrate the achievements of our people and ensure that it is part of the record. [Applause.] The statements that are being made that attempt to deny the people of our country their rightful role in crafting the Freedom Charter merely illustrate that we have parties here that are haemorrhaging from a lack of strategic ideas or focus. [Applause.] We shall acknowledge the history of our people, we shall celebrate our achievements through crafting the Freedom Charter, and we shall celebrate the fact that we are now free. [Applause.]
DONATION FOR SPORTS DEVELOPMENT
(Minister’s Response)
The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Thank you very much, Chairperson. As this government we have said it many times in this country that the issue of sports development is non-negotiable. It therefore is very good to hear that kit has been donated by the rugby team of Manchester United to the young people of South Africa, and we really appreciate that. As a government we have always emphasised that the development of sport, especially amongst young, disadvantaged South Africans, should be something that goes on all the time. We therefore appreciate this gesture and hope that it will go a long way in addressing the representativity of teams in South Africa.
The march to transformation that we have started as the ANC and as the government is rolling on, despite the doomsayers over there who want to stop it. Thank you very much.
CHILDREN'S BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, hon members, the second reading of the Children’s Bill in the National Assembly is a significant milestone because the process of developing this Bill started in the year 1996, when it was acknowledged that the existing legislation was not in keeping with the rights of children as contained in the Constitution.
Existing legislation also hampered our ability adequately to respond to the challenging social realities facing children, families and communities in postapartheid South Africa. The Bill before the National Assembly today gives effect to the rights of children contained in the Constitution, by determining principles and guidelines for the care and protection of all children in this country. It consolidates the laws relating to the welfare and protection of children and defines parental responsibility and the rights of children.
The Bill also seeks to promote the preservation and strengthening of families, specifies the best interests of the child’s standards and recognises the special needs of children with disabilities. The Bill is premised on strengthening and developing community structures that provide care and protection to children and gives effect to the republic’s obligation concerning the wellbeing of children in terms of the international conventions that have been signed by our democratic South Africa.
When passed by Parliament, the Bill will repeal, amongst others, the Child Care Act of 1960, the Age of Majority Act of 1972, the Child Care Act of 1983, the Children’s Status Act of 1987 and the Natural Fathers of Children Born out of Wedlock Act of 1997. Also repealed will be section 1 of the General Law Further Amendment Act of 1962. In addition the Act will reinforce international standards such as the Guardianship Act of 1993, the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspect of International Child Abduction Act of 1996 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In addition, the comprehensive scope of the Bill, the intersectoral nature and participatory character of the Bill need to be highlighted. The Bill requires that all sectors and spheres of government, and hence the services they provide to children, promote child participation in all matters that impact on their wellbeing and rights.
The Bill before the House contains many far-reaching and innovative features. The age of majority is lowered from 21 to 18. The acquisition and loss of parental responsibility and rights are addressed and provision is made for the signing of parental rights agreement and parenting plans. The establishment, status and jurisdiction of the Children’s Courts are specified and provision is made for lay forum hearings and family group conferences to act in the best interest of the child.
In addition to a child protection register, the Bill enables the removal of an alleged offender from the home or place where the child resides. Issues of concern to medical treatment and access to contraceptives are addressed and certain social, cultural and religious practices are prohibited. Intercountry adoptions are regulated to safeguard the best interest of the child and provisions are included to provide the abduction, the sale, or trafficking of children.
The National Legislative Framework detailed in the Children’s Bill is groundbreaking and requires new approaches and skills. Important roles are assigned to the private sector and civil society service providers, with respect to state resources. The Bill adopts a required principle that reasonable measures must be taken within available resources by all spheres of government to prioritise the realisation of the objectives of the Bill.
The passage of this Bill is a significant milestone, not only because of the imperatives of our Constitution, the challenging social realities facing children and our consensus on far-reaching innovations but because a new legislative foundation for the care and protection of children in our country has been created. The executive branch of government is satisfied that an appropriate solid basis for further refinements and innovations has been laid.
I would like to close by thanking the SA Law Commission, the numerous civil society advocacy groups, the members of the Portfolio Committee, the State Law Advisors, the staff and management of the Department of Social Development, other government departments and my colleagues in Cabinet. It is only by means of your vision, commitment, rigour, hard work, persistence and spirit of compromise that we have finally reached this turning point in the care and protection of children in our country.
Our children deserve nothing less and I appeal for the support of members of this House. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs T J TSHIVHASE: Madam Chairperson, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, and children of South Africa, our theme is: “Caring communities protect children”.
It is my pleasure to speak in this debate on the Children’s Bill because it represents one component of our commitment to the provision of the Freedom Charter, which says, “South Africa belongs to all who live in it.” This includes children of our country, and we cannot say that South Africa belongs to them if we do not provide them with safe and caring environment in which to grow up and prosper.
We are all aware that this Bill took a long time to be finalised – nearly a decade. I think that it is vitally important to give a bit of background in this regard.
Tsha u thoma, vhathu vhothe vha kwameaho vho tendelana u bva mathomoni nga ha thodea ya vhusimamilayo ine ya amba nga ha zwi kwamaho vhana. [Firstly, from the beginning, all stakeholders agreed on the need for a comprehensive legislation dealing with these children’s issues.]
The Portfolio Committee on Social Development, the SA Law Reform Commission, the Department of Social Development and various civil society groups were all involved in the drafting of a framework for such children’s legislation. The SALRC proposed a draft children’s Bill in January 2003. This was followed by an extensive consultation with various role-players, which resulted in significant amendments to the draft Bill.
Cabinet approved the Children’s Bill in January 2003 and it was subsequently sent to Parliament for consideration. For various procedural and constitutional reasons, the Children’s Bill had to be split into two – section 75 and 76. This caused a further delay. However, throughout this process there was considerable dedication shown by all people involved and this should be commended.
In August 2004, the portfolio committee held extensive public hearings on the Children’s Bill and a wide variety of issues were brought up at these hearings. Encouraging developments at these hearings were the diversity of civil society bodies that made representations. Also, the committee appreciated that many groups brought the children along to make substantial submissions themselves on issues affecting them. Well done!
The committee applied its mind to various issues that were brought up in the public hearings. I can fairly say that these issues had a profound impact on bringing about the versions of the Bill debated here today. The committee also had extensive consultations with the various groups and departments that will be affected by this legislation, namely the Departments of Education, Justice and Constitutional Development, Health and others. We had to assure ourselves, and the children of South Africa, that we are all equally ready to implement the provisions of this Bill.
Finally, after that consultation, we spent hours debating this Bill in the committee and I am sure that the hon members will agree that we owe a tremendous debt. Thanks to the officials of the Department of Social Development, the SA Law Reform Commission, the state law advisers and the various civil society groups for the long hours they put on this Bill – together with us.
Vhana vha khou vheiwa khomboni duvha linwe na linwe. Ndi ngazwo Mulayotibe wo tea u sedza kha masia othe u itela uri ri kone u divha zwauri vha la mini, vha edela ngafhi, vha ya zwikoloni nga ndila-de, khathihi na sedza vhothe vha lwalaho na vha re dzidzhele. (Translation of Tshivenda paragraph follows.)
[Children are placed in dangerous situations every day. It is for this reason that the Bill has to look at the issue from all angles in order for us to know what they eat, where they sleep, how they get to school, as well as providing care to those who are ill and those who are in jail.]
We did all this because we wanted to be sure that this legislation would really fulfil its purpose, namely to ensure that we give effect to the South African belief that “your child is my child”, and to establish a safe and healthy environment in which our children will develop and grow.
Now, allow me to turn to a few of these clauses that we spent so much time on. The first line on the Children’s Bill preamble reminds us that this Bill is intended to give effect to certain rights of children, as contained in the Constitution. These rights are further elaborated upon to include the right to family or parental care or appropriate alternative care when a child is removed from the family environment.
Comrade Masutha will deal with the legislative basis for the inclusion of these rights, but let me deal with the social reasons for such inclusion. The ANC has always maintained that our children need to be protected and we remain committed to putting in place the structure, services and the means for promoting and monitoring sound physical, intellectual, emotional and social development of children.
We receive reports and observe many instances of children living in conditions of extreme poverty and deprivation. We also hear consistent reports about various atrocities committed against our children. This has to stop. A society that does not take care of children is a society that will eventually destroy itself. The ANC is committed to the fact that enacting this law will aid various government departments, communities and other stakeholders to strengthen and develop community structures that can assist in providing care and protection of children.
An unfortunate reality in our society today is the number of child-headed households. This Bill recognises this reality in allowing the child who is the head of a child-headed household to be recognised as a caregiver and to be able to access various social grants and services that may be available to them. However, the Bill also provides for children in a child-headed household to be declared as children in need of care and protection. Therefore it triggers access to various other forms of protection. This is just one example of the many ways in which the Bill seeks to change the way we protect our children, and my colleagues will discuss the rest.
Maipfi a ndivhuwo a tea u livhiswa kha mirado ya Komiti ya Phothifolio ya Mveledziso ya Matshilisano vha kale na vha zwino, Mudzulatshidulo na mirado yo komiti yo tanganelanaho i sedzaho zwa vhana, vhaswa, vhaholefhali na mirado yothe yo di dzhenisaho kha hoyu mushumo une wa vhuedza. (Translation of Tshivenda paragraph follows.)
[Words of gratitude need to be directed at the former and present members of the Portfolio Committee on Social Development, the chairperson and members of the joint committee which looks into issues that concern children, youth, the disabled, as well as all members who are engaged in this valuable task.]
All that remains for me to do is to, again, thank all the stakeholders, the Department of Social Development, other government departments and everybody who contributed to this Bill. Over the past decade, our collective message and call to action has been to put the children first. The protection of children is everybody’s business, and this is to promote the spirit of ubuntu and the ethic that: “Nwana wavho ndi nwananga” [Your child is my child], which makes our society strong. Therefore the ANC supports this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr M WATERS: Madam Speaker, hon Minister, hon members, it is a great pleasure and relief to be participating in the Children’s Bill debate today. The Bill has been before Parliament for three years, and it has taken the portfolio committee many long hours of hard work to bring it before Parliament. I would like to thank all the officials whose sleepless nights have ensured that the Bill beats the deadlines. I commend their commitment and dedication.
Finally, I would like to thank all the NGOs who are sitting in the Gallery for continuously lobbying us and giving us all pieces of paper during the process. Thank you very much.
With a Bill of this magnitude there are bound to be aspects that parties do not agree with. However, one has to consider the Bill as a whole and decide whether the positives outweigh the negatives. It gives me great pleasure to announce that the DA will be supporting the Children’s Bill today.
On the negative side, one aspect of the process that left a bad taste in our mouths was the incident where the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and our own Minister invited themselves to the portfolio committee meeting and ordered the committee to change all its amendments to the chapter dealing with the children’s courts. The oversight function of the portfolio committee was severely eroded. The ANC did a U- turn on the rights of children to legal representation by allowing the Legal Aid Board to decide whether there is enough money available to provide it. The DA’s insistence that we need to legislate to ensure adequate financial resources fell on deaf ears. In fact, the Department of Justice said that if a child was refused legal representation, the child could go to the Constitutional Court. What rubbish! If a child is unable to obtain legal representation for a civil matter in the children’s court, how on earth are they expected to go to the Constitutional Court to invoke their constitutional right? To my dismay, ANC followed the orders of their Ministers.
In addition, the ANC did another U-turn with regard to guardianship. Currently, the children’s court has jurisdiction over deciding who the foster parents of a child should be but does not have the jurisdiction over a less permanent relationship of guardianship, which is to remain with the High Court.
Given the Aids pandemic our country is currently reeling under, resulting in tens of thousands of children with no parents, it makes no sense whatsoever to expect surviving members of mainly poor families in rural areas to travel hundreds of kilometres to a High Court in their province, when they could have accessed the children’s court much closer to home. A grandmother living on a state pension of R780 per month needs every cent to feed her hungry grandchildren, not spend that on transport.
It makes perfect sense that if a children’s court can deal with the appointing of foster parents, they can deal with the issue of guardianship too.
Despite the Bill having been approved by Cabinet some three years ago, the costing of the Bill only began a few months ago, and we are all in the dark as to how much the Bill is going to cost. It amazes us that the department waited until the eleventh hour before it got its act together. In order for a portfolio committee to conduct its work in a thorough way, costing a Bill should be complete before it reaches the committee.
Lastly, on the negative side, the DA would have liked to see the Children’s Protector retained in the Bill.
There are many positive aspects to the Bill. When I was first elected to Parliament, I asked the then Minister of Justice whether a Sexual Offences Register of sorts would be created in South Africa. I am delighted, in fact I am ecstatic, that we now have a National Child Protection Register. This is a monumental step in the fight against child abuse. The information on the register will be used to protect all children from abuse by registered sex offenders.
In addition, the Bill allows various bodies, which are established and recognised by legislation, to reach a finding that a particular person is unsuitable to work with children. It even goes further by stating that in criminal proceedings a person must be found unsuitable to work with children where that person has been convicted of murder, attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse and assault with intent. This clause will apply for five years retrospectively.
Another safeguard is that any person convicted of an offence with regard to any child more than once may not be removed from the register. He will never be able to work with children again. We welcome that as the DA. The DA will be keeping an eagle eye on the register to ensure that the necessary resources are allocated to it and that it is properly maintained.
Another long overdue chapter is that on trafficking in children. Unfortunately, this chapter fails to deal with trafficking in adults – obviously and particularly that of women. The hon Camerer submitted a private member’s Bill on this very issue over two years ago and it is about time that private member’s Bills were evaluated on merit and not on the party, which the individual concerned belongs to.
According to a Parliamentary reply to my question, last year alone 867 children were reported missing. That is more than two children per day. This represents a dramatic increase of nearly 22% in the number of children reported missing between 2001 and 2004.
Human trafficking has become a multi-million dollar industry. Humans, particularly children, are used as sex slaves, drug mules, used in the creation of child pornography and as cheap labour. Now, syndicates will hopefully no longer target South Africa because our children have no legislative protection.
The rights of unmarried fathers were a topic of much discussion. For the first time, unmarried fathers who at the time of their child’s birth are living with the mother in a permanent life partnership acquire full parental responsibilities and rights. In addition, unmarried biological fathers who are not living with the mother but who have, according to a court of law, contributed or have attempted in good faith to contribute to the child’s upbringing costs for reasonable period will receive full parental responsibilities and rights. We welcome this.
We hope the next aspect the committee should tackle in conjunction with the Justice committee will be to address the issue of ``deadbeat dads’’ – those fathers who refuse to pay maintenance.
Children’s rights have also been strengthened in the area of social, cultural and religious practices. We welcome this.
Genital mutilation, female circumcision and virginity testing of children are prohibited, and boys are given the right to refuse circumcision. Anyone who conducts female circumcision or virginity testing or who circumcises the child against his will, or anyone who permits such an action on a child who he or she is obliged to protect, will be guilty of an offence. We welcome this.
The challenge now is to ensure that children know their rights and that they can exercise their rights without fear.
The DA supports this Bill. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Mr M V NGEMA: Madam Chairperson, children are the future of any society because they provide an important link between the generation into which they are born and the generation immediately following their own. For this reason, a wise society must go a long way toward investing in a solid, well- balanced child, knowing that such investment ensures that a balanced society is eventually realised.
Children are also the most vulnerable members of our society. Many of them have their rights violated and are taken advantage of on a daily basis. It is up to us to provide them with the necessary protection and care that they need in order to feel safe and enjoy their childhood.
The Children’s Bill is an important piece of legislation that will go a long way towards protecting the rights of these vulnerable members of our society. This Bill is greatly needed as South Africa had acceded to various international conventions, which meant that our legislation also needed updating and adjusting in order to provide more comprehensive protection for our children. It has been important that this Bill consolidates all the other pieces of legislation dealing with different aspects of welfare and development of the child into one comprehensive piece of legislation. There has been consultation and interaction with various stakeholders about this important piece of legislation and a lot of time has been spent working on it. We therefore hope that the final product will be able to fulfil its stated objectives.
The IFP, however, believes that there should have been more comprehensive consultation with traditional communities where, for instance, virginity testing is part of their culture, in order to find a more human and respectable manner to regulate this customary practice better. We could have avoided the double standard that manifests itself in the complete banning of virginity testing, where no deaths are experienced, while the preservation of circumcision has been regulated.
The everyday life of many children in South Africa is a constant battle. They are faced with many threats that increase their vulnerability and also pose a direct danger to them. One of these threats is the trafficking in children. It is usually those with little or no education and who come from poor backgrounds that are most at risk of being victims of human trafficking. Trafficking in people is considered to be the third-largest source of profit for organised crime. It is still increasing. Children are trafficked both internationally and within our borders into a range of exploitative practices that include labour exploitation, sexual exploitation, marriage and illegal adoption, among others.
It is therefore significant that this Bill specifically addresses child trafficking and gives effect to the UN Protocol to Prevent Trafficking in Persons. It also provides assistance to children who are victims of trafficking and ultimately aims to combat trafficking in children. This unlawful and inhuman practice must be stopped as a matter of urgency. We cannot allow South Africa to become a hub for child trafficking and hopefully this Bill is the first step in wiping out trafficking in children and providing the necessary protection that they need.
There are a great number of children who are infected and affected by HIV/Aids. Their lives are irrevocably changed. Thousands of children have been orphaned and many more will be orphaned as a result of this pandemic. This leads to an increase in child-headed households and ultimately further increases the vulnerability of … [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr M DIKO: Madam Chair, hon Ministers and hon members, the UDM would like to thank the officials and the NGOs that participated in this process.
The objects of this Bill go to the very core of our Constitution and our efforts to create a society based on human rights. If we cannot protect the dignity and safety of the most innocent and weakest amongst us, we cannot claim to be succeeding as a rights-based society.
Recently, the UDM highlighted in this House the shocking rate of child deaths as a result of violence in this country. Every year, 1 100 children aged 14 years and younger die due to violence and intentional assault. A seven-year review of deaths amongst children younger than 15 revealed that head injuries constituted 42%. A separate study found that of 1809 child deaths, more than half were unnatural deaths. In this study, the ages ranged between 1 month and 11 years. What the research has also highlighted is that victims often had a history of injuries supposedly sustained from falling accidentally. These are merely the cases that fall at very extreme end of the spectrum of children’s-rights violations.
The UDM has previously called upon the Ministers of Safety and Security, Social Development and Health to review the reporting of the investigation mechanism for suspicious injuries to children admitted to hospitals and clinics. We are now happy that this Bill creates an environment for such interventions.
We call upon the Department of Social Development to publish the contents of this Bill widely, especially to ensure that education; health and police officials are fully aware and ready to implement this Bill.
The UDM supports this Bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. [Applause.]
Mr T M MASUTHA: Chairperson, first of all I would like to echo the sentiments already expressed by the Chair and others after her by thanking profoundly the efforts that were put into this project by the department jointly with their colleagues in other departments and by the NGOs, which played a very close role in perfecting this Bill through public hearings and other processes.
As the Chair has already alluded to, we sought to consult widely through provincial visits, meeting various communities and visiting various institutions where children are cared for, to appraise ourselves of what is actually happening on the ground and actually alerting the community at large to what is entailed in this legislation.
But before I proceed, I would like to address one or two issues that were raised by the DA this afternoon. I think it is what borders on political posturing for hon Mike Waters to accuse the Minister and the Deputy Minister of having instructed the committee to change the entire clause on the courts. Of course, you know that the clause you referred to or the Chapter you referred to was not changed holus-bolus. The reason why there was a need for the Minister and the Deputy Minister to come and address the committee arose in line with the process and the approach which we as a committee adopted. That was to ensure that this legislation, because of its multisectoral nature in the sense that it does not only affect social development but also health, it has issues relating to justice, it has issues relating to several other departments - we ensured that throughout the process other departments affected by this Bill are alerted to the provisions of the Bill that affect them and are invited to give input because we regarded the significance of this Bill lying in its integrated approach to addressing the needs and welfare of children.
No single department can, on its own, take upon itself the responsibility of addressing the many complex challenges that affect children. So of course, it was in line with the approach of the committee itself that Justice came to the committee - not only the Deputy Minister, but officials of Justice who have invited the Master’s Office to come and address us, who have invited various stakeholders to come and address us on different complex issues because of the complex nature of the legislation. So all that they are saying is completely unfounded.
On the second issue around guardianship, the Department of Justice indicated to us that they were busy rolling out the new type of court called family courts, which would seek to integrate different aspects affecting the welfare of children - issues of maintenance, issues of domestic violence, all of which were dealt with in separate courts. Children’s courts et cetera are all magistrates courts, but they are separate courts and the idea is to integrate the institution so that eventually you have a well-established family court system.
They requested that because the specific issue of guardianship was a complex one, it would be ideal for such an issue to be deferred until this new court system was established - that is, the system of family courts, which would be better placed to deal with that issue. So it’s not as if it was just a simple question of refusing to move in terms of ensuring that all issues relating to children are dealt with by courts which are most accessible to people, namely the magistrates courts which, in this case, are children’s courts because every magistrates court in terms of the current law is also a children’s court.
I think it is very important that these issues are explained in context and that they are not used as political football to score cheap political points. But having said so, let me proceed and state first of all that the Bill before us is a product of and a milestone in the long walk towards the creation of a caring, child centred and child-friendly society that we as a nation has striven for.
On 16 June 1995 former president Mr Mandela signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, thereby committing us as a nation to become a child- friendly society. A year later Parliament passed the current Constitution, section 28 of which outlines the fundamental rights of children over and above the rights that children enjoy under the Bill of Rights as a whole.
The section I have just mentioned also enjoins us as a nation to put children first by stating that in all matters affecting children their best interest takes precedence. The Bill before us today is in large measure aimed at responding to these national and international obligations towards children that we have. This law seeks to integrate a number of laws dealing with the legal status of children, care and protection of children and the protection of their interest on the one hand whilst at the same time it engenders a new ethos that seeks to affirm the role of those who play a crucial role in the survival and upbringing of children, be they parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, care givers within or even beyond the extended family as well as organisations and communities or structures in communities that care for children, especially those who are orphaned or abandoned.
The increased number of orphans in our society resulting from the untimely death of their parents due to various medical causes including HIV/Aids has exacerbated the ever-increasing challenge of children having to look after their younger siblings, commonly known as the phenomenon of child-headed households. This Bill, whilst not seeking to encourage the proliferation of such incidents, recognises this challenge and provides for measures that will assist children in such situations to cope with this burden and not be subjected to exploitation by opportunistic adults through, amongst others, property grabbing.
Currently three parallel systems regulate the affairs of children, namely the Common Law, which derives essentially from Roman and Roman-Dutch Law, Statutory Law and African Customary Law, all of which are recognised under our Constitution. This creates a situation in which different rules are applied by different institutions dealing with the same issues.
Children’s courts are confined to implementing the Child Care Act, traditional courts apply Customary Law and the High Court as upper guardian of all minor children applies the Common Law over essentially similar matters regarding children. While this Bill seeks to create a common standard for the care and wellbeing of children, it also extends the jurisdiction of the children’s court to deal with some of the matters which are currently within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court, such as custody over children, which this Bill now refers to as “care for children”, a much more child-friendly term, as well as access which is now in this Bill being referred to as “contact with children”.
This, we hope, will alleviate the plight of many poor rural communities, especially those which have to incur huge travel costs as well as legal fees to access our high courts. With the increased movement of people across national boundaries, especially resulting from the re-integration into the broader family of nations in the case of our own country, we have become party to a number of international agreements aimed at the protection of children who find themselves across boundaries of various countries for various reasons, including adoption or so-called inter- country adoption, abduction and the trafficking of children – matters which have already been alluded to this afternoon.
These include the Hague Conventions on Intercountry Adoption, Intercountry Abduction and various international instruments that prohibit trafficking in human beings, especially women and children. This legislation seeks to give effect to these instruments by creating the necessary procedures and institutions to deal effectively with the rights and wellbeing of children in such situations. Currently, for example, our law does not provide for inter-country adoption. As a result of the Constitutional Court judgement in the Fitzpatrick case in 1998, Parliament is required to close this gap, hence the provisions in this Bill creating a system of intercountry adoption for our country.
Child abuse and neglect have always been some of the social challenges that we have been faced with for some time. You will recall, for instance, the widely publicised incidence of child rapes that became the talk of the day in recent years and that prompted this Parliament to, amongst other measures, hold public hearings two years ago, which saw large numbers of stakeholders participating and proposing . . . [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Hon member, I regret your time has expired.
Mr T M MASUTHA: Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mr L W GREYLING: Chair, the ID believes that this is truly a great day for children’s rights. This Bill has been in the system for many years, but the ID feels that all the deliberations have produced a truly revolutionary piece of legislation that significantly advances children’s rights in South Africa. It also revolutionises parental responsibilities and rights in South Africa.
In order for this Bill to deliver on its huge expectations, however, Treasury will have to make available sufficient funds for provincial government to employ additional social workers to cope with the extra demands that we put on the sector. We currently do not have nearly enough social workers in South Africa and we all have to address this crisis urgently.
The ID also welcomes the fact that loopholes regarding inter-country adoptions have been closed and we believe that all efforts must be made to place children in South African families first. The ID also supports the criminalizing of child trafficking as contained in this Bill. This is an international scourge, which South Africa needs to play its part in eradicating.
The one issue, which the ID has concerns with, however, is the fact that guardianship issues are still the exclusive domain of the High Court. Many poor families cannot afford the expensive costs associated with the High Court and the ID would like to see this issue addressed.
The ID strongly supports the attention given to children with disabilities in this Bill and notes with satisfaction that the Bill stipulates that their interests have to be taken into consideration in departmental planning. We hope that this progressive attitude will now also be extended to the issue of inclusive education so that more disabled children can obtain the education they are entitled to.
Finally, it needs to be said that this Bill has to be put within the context of the grinding poverty that many of our children and families have to endure. Children’s rights can only be effectively realised if we address the underlying poverty of our society. The ID therefore, once again, renews its call to extend the child support grant to all children under the age of
- This is in keeping with the constitutional definition of children and it will go a long way in extending the social security net to many impoverished families. The ID supports this Bill. [Time Expired.] Thank you. [Applause.]
Mrs C DUDLEY: The ACDP acknowledges and welcomes all the young people in the gallery and especially those who are with Molo Songolo. They have a specific interest in the trafficking of children, which this Bill, today, will criminalize and ACDP supports these clauses in the Bill.
We call, of course, for the urgent implementation of trafficking legislation, which will be necessary to put a stop to sex tourism in South Africa, which violates our children. While the Bill before us contains important measures to deal with trafficking of children and abduction and includes the Child Protection Register, other clauses give rise to serious concerns and the ACDP believes they increase the vulnerability of our children.
The lowering of the age of consent to 12 years with regard to medical and surgical treatment places an unfair burden on children, making them extremely vulnerable. Termination of pregnancy without parental consent at the age of 12 years was made possible in the CTOP Act and this Bill just confirms this shocking reality. Once this Bill becomes an Act, provision of contraceptives to 12-year-olds also becomes law.
In the UK, a 14-year-long study of underage pregnancy has questioned the effectiveness of policies that increase easy availability of contraceptives for children under 16. Dr Paton pointed out that an increase in access to family-planning clinics did not decrease pregnancy rates and even increased them in some instances because it encouraged people to be sexually active. A high contraceptive failure rate added to the problem. The impact, of course, on HIV/Aids is an added concern.
The Bill confirms court findings, which legalise the adoption of children by same-sex couples. This is a dangerous trend promoting a homosexual agenda and children should not be guinea pigs in such unnatural social experiments. Statistics highlight the fact that children who grow up in single sex parented homes are clearly disadvantaged and the consequences are often tragic. This is not a solution by any stretch of imagination and, yes, the ACDP was the only party to vote against the Constitution on this and other grounds.
Protection is provided in the Bill for surrogate mothers to choose to abort their unborn children, regardless of the fact that loving parents and their loving home await the arrival of the child. This clause has compromised this Bill and undermined any positive impact it may otherwise have had in protecting our children. On these grounds, the ACDP unfortunately is forced to vote against it.
The 76 version of the Bill, which is not yet before Parliament, contains clauses with financial implications for provinces expected to deliver child protection services. This section 75 Bill is therefore likely to have no impact until the other half is passed. One of the most critical issues hampering and eroding effective delivery of child protection services is the lack of provision for funding of NGOs who actually deliver the bulk of statutory services. Neither section of the Bill addresses this issue.
Controversial clauses, which prohibit parents from disciplining their children with a smack, will appear in section 76 as well. The ACDP believes that parents have a God-given responsibility to raise and train their children and the state should not undermine parental authority and responsibility in the home. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mrs X C MAKASI: Chairperson, hon Minister, Deputy Ministers, hon members, comrades and friends, today is a very honourable day in our history. The ANC is honoured and happy to be leading the government that is finally able to introduce the first part of our comprehensive children’s legislation. This day represents another part of the dreams we had when we declared in the Freedom Charter that: “All shall enjoy equal human rights.” The ANC knew that even our children would be free to enjoy all the rights we owe to them.
This has been a long process and we thank Comrade Tshivhase and everybody who has positively participated in this process. This legislation is important for all the reasons that have already been mentioned. It makes provision for the protection of children. It provides for services and structures that can assist in providing care for children and it gives effect to some of our international obligation with regard to children.
However, I want to highlight a few specific areas where the new children’s legislation will have very specific impact. It is clear that this Bill represents a move away from a common law concept of parental power towards the notion of parental responsibilities and rights. However, it must always be remembered that not everything about the concept of parental powers was detrimental to the child.
As is the case throughout the Bill, those aspects of parental powers that were in the best interest of the children are retained within the notion of parental care and responsibilities.
The new formulation of parental responsibility and rights is designed to recognise the rights and powers of both parents and children. For example, the rights of parents to discipline or even reprimand their children should be weighed up against the child’s right to dignity and integrity.
The ANC is very aware that there are various opinions and practices regarding the notion of corporal punishment of children. However, it is important for parents to recognise that this right can only be exercised to an extent that does not conflict with our Bill of Rights and our international obligation in terms of the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
Another situation is that this Bill attempts to deal with the changing nature of the family and how this relates to our children.
Lo Mthetho usayilwayo uzama ukuqwalasela amalungelo abazali nabantwana abazelwe ngaphandle komtshato.
Kwakhona, ukwaqwalasela iimeko zabantu abanomdla ebantwaneni. Kwisahluko sesi-3, kwicandelo 18 lalo Mthetho usayilwayo kuthethwa ngoxanduva kwanamalungelo obuzali. Ungafaka isicelo enkundleni ukuze ufumane amalungelo obuzali.
Ezi zibonelelo zinika umnyinyiva omkhulu kootat’ omkhulu noomakhulu, kumaqabane angengobazali kodwa ehlala ixesha elide nabantwana, nakwabanye abantu ababonise ubudlelwane nabantwana. Xa inkundla inikezela ngamalungelo noxanduva lobuzali ikhokelwa zizinto ezibalulekileyo ngokubhekisele kumntwana lowo.
Lo Mthetho usayilwayo ukhankanya ukuba oomathathu amanqanaba karhulumente kufuneka asebenzisane ukuphuhlisa indlela efanayo nehlangeneyo yokuzisa iinkonzo ebantwaneni. Oku kungqina ikhwelo likaMongameli elithi onke amanqanaba karhulumente kufuneka asebenzisane ukuze abe nokuzalisekisa izithembiso zikarhulumente okhokelwa yi-ANC. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[The Bill is intended to consider the rights of women and children born out of wedlock.
It also considers the interests of children to be of paramount importance. Chapter 3, section 18 of the Bill stipulates the rights and responsibilities of parents and rights by order of the court.
The child support grant obtainable from government provides relief to grandparents and to citizens who temporarily adopt children. It also helps those who show goodwill towards children who are in need of care. When the court rules with regard to acknowledging the responsibilities and rights of parenthood, it considers what is important for the child.
The Bill stipulates that the three tiers of government must work together for welfare service delivery, particularly for children. This is in line with the President’s call that all government departments must work together to fulfil the promises made by the ANC-led government.]
This Bill also gives effect to the ANC’s commitment to put our children first, in making sure that the different spheres of government are encouraged to prioritise the care and development of our children, whilst recognising that there are various competing social and economic interests. The Bill obliges organs of state to take this noble step to the maximum extent of their resources to achieve this objective of this Act.
In conclusion, it is the responsibility of every mother, every father and all responsible citizens of this country to ensure that children are not neglected, but are cared for and to take action against any form of abuse towards children. Children’s rights are human rights. I support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N T GODI: Chairperson, Comrade Minister, comrades and hon members, allow me as I rise to support this Bill, believing that its merits far outweigh its demerits.
I dedicate my speech to the five children who were butchered by the murderous SA Defence Force on 8 October 1993 in Comrade Sigqibo Mpendulo’s house in Umtata in the cold, calculated but mistaken belief that they were attacking an Apla facility. The tree of liberty watered by their blood has been bearing fruit for the past 11 years and one of them is the Bill we are passing today.
The passing of this Bill today is timeous, relevant and complementary because it comes a few days after a meeting under the auspices of the African Union in Addis Ababa on protecting orphans and vulnerable children.
The meeting, in line with the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of
the Child sought to make Africa a place fit for children’’ and declared
thatchildren deserve a brighter future’’. The PAC believes that this is
what we seek to do in this Bill for our children in South Africa.
The core or the spirit of this Bill, we believe, is captured in its object of promoting the protection, development and wellbeing of children and in making the best interest of the child the basis for all or any decision taken in respect of the child.
I would be failing in my responsibilities if I did not thank everyone involved in this process, from our chairperson, Comrade Tshivhase, for her leadership, to the committee members and the bureaucrats, both parliamentary and governmental. This is a huge Bill in terms of policy dimensions, implementation challenges and its cross-cutting nature and thrust departmentally.
This Bill has been a long time coming precisely because of its cross- cutting nature and the responsibilities and obligations it entails for other departments. We hope for the sake of the African child that implementation will be fast-tracked.
Whilst the staggering of implementation is at times an objective reality, we certainly would like to counsel strongly against it. Already a number of aspects have been watered down and any retreat from or procrastination on what is currently in the Bill will certainly not be in the best interest of the child. It would be disastrous and defeatist.
We would like for the structures, services and means for the realisation of the best interest of the child, especially the courts, to be as accessible and responsive as the realities are on the ground. We must be able to rush dealing with the challenge of orphans and the need for guardianship in the context of African realities.
The recent international labour organisation conference in Geneva identified trafficking, especially of children, as facilitating the scourge of forced labour. For us in South Africa this Bill helps us to deal with child trafficking adequately.
We applaud the recognition enshrined in the Bill of children with special needs. That recognition and consciousness in our society still needs serious development. We are happy that those who abuse children, both men and women, will be barred from working with children. We are equally satisfied about the strengthening and development of community structures as an integral part of protecting and promoting the wellbeing of children.
As we pass this Bill we say never again should our children suffer neglect and deprivation or be robbed of their right to be children by a system of government as abhorrent and decadent as white minority rule was. I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms S RAJBALLY: Thank you, Madam Chair. The children of our nation are its future. Like a well-fertilised garden receiving the necessary nourishment and care, they shall produce great blossoms. In turn, the care and proper socialisation of our young shall serve to produce leaders who will take our democracy to avenues we so desperately strived to achieve. The Minority Front firmly supports the establishment of structures, services and means to develop children physically, intellectually, emotionally and socially.
We firmly believe that South African children are the biggest responsibility we have and we strongly support the development of our community structures and share their support, care and protection of our children.
Child abuse is one of our greatest concerns and it is encouraging to note that this Bill provides for the protection of children from all forms of maltreatment, abuse, neglect and discrimination in any form.
Children are unfortunately also victims of HIV and Aids, with many being orphaned by it. The MF is pleased that this Bill serves to institute care and protection for children in need. These concerns extend beyond our national concerns and, noting the unanimity in international concerns regarding children, it is pleasing to note that the Bill also serves to address our compliance with international obligations and undertakings committing us to the wellbeing of our children.
The MF is encouraged that the provisions of this Bill shall pave a bright future for our children if applied effectively and efficiently. I take this opportunity to thank and applaud the portfolio committee, the departments and all those involved who burnt the midnight oil to produce this auspicious Bill for the children of our nation. We must always remember: Ingane yakho ingane yami, ingane yami ingane yakho. [Your child is my child and my child is your child.]
The Minority Front supports this Children’s Bill. [Applause.]
Ms H WEBER: Madam Chairperson, the DA welcomes the co-operation by all parties serving on the portfolio committee. In the end, this produced a Bill that the DA largely supports, although there were times when critical aspects of children’s rights were about to be left out.
My colleague, the hon Waters, mentioned in his speech the intervention of certain Ministers to ensure that access by children to children’s courts would be restricted. But the DA is pleased that members of the ANC eventually agreed with the DA about certain other key aspects of the Bill, and I refer here particularly to clauses on disability.
Between 3 million and 6 million South Africans have moderate to severe disabilities, and many of these are children. In South Africa it is unfortunate that there is a direct relationship between disability and poverty, malnutrition and discrimination.
Children with disabilities are often not able to defend themselves against abuse. Sometimes they are ostracised by their communities. Often they are unable to access youth development programmes and services for which they are eligible. For this reason the DA pressured the committee into prescribing in the Bill that courts must give assistance to children with disabilities and the chronically ill.
The committee’s inclusion of this clause is welcome indeed. We also welcome the fact that the Bill places an obligation on courts to ensure that they are accessible to all people with disabilities.
Court visits are difficult, confusing and frightening enough for adults, all the more so for children. So the requirement that every court must have a room designed in such a manner as to make children feel at ease and that every effort must be made to find a person who will take time to interpret what a disabled child wants to say is a great step forward.
We also support the intercountry adoption clauses. The strict rules that must now be adhered to in accordance with The Hague Convention will go a long way in preventing child trafficking, which is something that must be stopped at all costs. The challenge now is to ensure that South Africa complies fully with these provisions.
I would like to also thank all the NGOs who were present at all our portfolio committee meetings. The DA supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Mr B M SOLO: Ngekhe silwe namhlanje. [We won’t be fighting today.]
Madam Speaker, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, hon members, Takalani and the children out there, gradually and continually we are realising the dawn of a very new day. Again, the ANC-led government is demonstrating its seriousness in ensuring that South Africa belongs to all who live in it and that it meets its constitutional obligations, such as those in chapter 2 of the Constitution, in particular section 28.
The Children’s Bill is nothing but a tool to ensure the sound foundation of the caring society we are building. It is an enabling tool to ensure a bright future for not only our children but for all of us as a society.
In support of all the speakers who supported this Bill and who have already outlined a number of the provisions of the Bill, it is not for me - and it is not my intention - to bore this House, save only to illustrate and emphasise some of the salient points with regard to adoption in its entirety.
The adoption provisions of the Bill, both local and intercountry, are very comprehensive. These provisions have formed some of the core discussions in the committee and public hearings. Any adoption to provide for the permanent care of a child will be done in terms of a court order in the best interests of the child. It should be clear that the purpose of adoption is to protect and nurture children by providing a safe, healthy environment with positive support, as spelt out in clause 229 of the Bill.
Accordingly, chapter 15 provides a whole range of standards, norms and procedures to be followed in dealing with adoption, including provisions with regard to persons who may adopt children, a register of adoptable children and prospective parents, consent to adoption and postadoption agreements, including the gathering of information for proposed adoptions.
Chapter 16 deals with intercountry adoptions, apart from the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption. The committee has also formulated provisions for nonconvention countries, mainly in Africa and other developing countries. It then becomes important for all South Africans, NGOs, civic-society organisations, including churches, to not only familiarise themselves with this particular chapter but to internalise and/or memorise it like a recitation, because as a society and a country we are beginning to see how children have been turned into commodities - trafficking, prostitution, child labour, etc.
Siyavuya ke nokubona ukuba amaqela onke torho ayawuvuyela lo Mthetho usayilwayo siwuqulunqayo namhlanje apha. Kodwa ke zikhona izinto ekufuneka sizicacise ezingabekwanga ngendlela efanelekileyo. Ndiyayithanda nale nto ithethwe leli lungu elibekekileyo, umfana osaze ngobuso elizweni uMnu Waters, othethe kakuhle kakhulu.
Siyabona noko ngoku ukuba ngenene inguqu iya iba khona kubo bonke abemi boMzantsi Afrika. Kodwa ke zikhona nje iindawo ekufuneka sizilungisile. Mhlawumbi zingavakala kabuhlungu xa zibekwe ngenye indlela. Ndiyeza ke apho.
Enye indawo endifuna ukuyilungisa ke nokuyicacisa yile ibekwe lilungu elibekekileyo elivela kwi-IFP, yokuba zange kuboniswane nabantu. Ndandikhona ngokwam phaya KwaZulu-Natal, phaya eNquthu, apho ungaboni nendlela xa uye kuthetha nabantu. Sasiphelele sonke apho, neenkosi zikhona. Ndade ndatya nazo, ndabekwa kwisihlalo esiphezulu. Ndafana nazo.
Into yokuba ke zange kubekho kuboniswana nawo noko asiyo nyaniso. Njengokuba bendisitsho ke, ikhona imithetho ejongene nezinto zasebukhosini, njengalo kuthiwa yi-Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act owaphunyezwa apha, onika abantu ilungelo lokwenza izinto zabo ngokwendlela abaphila ngayo.
Ukhona nomnye umthetho owaziwa njenge-Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities Act, onika abantu ilungelo lokuqhuba amasiko abo ngendlela yabo. Lo Mthetho osayilwayo oshukuxwa apha awusho ukuba izinto ezithile mazingenziwa, koko ujonge ukukhusela abantwana, ngakumbi abaselula.
Kubhaliwe apha kulo Mthetho osayilwayo kwaye naye angayibona le nto ibhaliwe apha, ukuba ebewufunde wonke lo Mthetho usayilwayo. Makangafundi le ndawana ayifunayo kuphela. Kubhaliwe phaya ukuba abantwana abangaphantsi kwe-18 mabakhuseleke. Abangaphezulu kwale minyaka banelungelo lokuzikhethela.
Ndibuye ke ndize kule nto ibithethwa apha ngabantu abathi bamele amaKrestu. Nangona besithi bamele amaKrestu, nam endinguye, kodwa abandimelanga mna. Bathi ke lo Mthetho usayilwayo awulunganga ngoba uvumela abantwana ukuba bakhuphe izisu. Andiqinisekanga ukuba ibekwa njani ngesiXhosa, kodwa ngathi kuthiwa luqhomfo.
Kwakhona, bafundile abanye babo, baneengubo ezimnyama ezinemigca ebomvu neminqwazi emikhulu. Kuthiwa bafundile. Abawufundanga kakuhle lo Mthetho usayilwayo ngoba awuthethi le nto bayithethayo. Kwaye soze senze umthetho ophikisa imithetho eyavunywa yile Ndlu. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[I am glad to notice that all parties seem to be happy about this Bill. However, there are things that we need to clarify. I welcome the young man, hon Mr Waters’s comments. He spoke very well.
We can see now that there will be changes in every South African citizen’s life. There are things that we still need to amend. They might not sound very good. I shall come back to that.
I would like to respond to an hon member from the IFP who said that people were not consulted. I was at Nquthu in KwaZulu-Natal, where there is not even a proper road to take you where you need to talk to the people. All of us were there. Traditional leaders were also present. I had a meal with them, I was offered a seat among them, and I felt important like them.
It is not true that they were not consulted. I have already mentioned that there are pieces of legislation that deal with the matter of traditional leaders, such as the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, which was passed here and which grants them the right to live according to their own norms and standards.
The Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities Act gives people the right to practise their customs in their own way. The Bill before us does not say that certain things should not be done, but it seeks to protect children.
That is what the Bill says, and had he read the Bill he would have seen that. He should not just read what he wants to read. It is included in the Bill that children below the age of 18 should be protected. Those who are older can choose for themselves.
I would like to come back to the comments made by those who say that they represent the Christian faith, which I do too, although they do not represent me. They say that they do not support this Bill. I am not sure how it is said in Xhosa, but I think they say it is abortion.
Some of them are learned and have black and red graduation gowns, hoods and caps. They are said to be well educated. They did not study this Bill, because one can see that they are not quoting the Bill. We would never have passed legislation to which this House did not agree.]
We are not going to create chaos. We are not going to allow . . .
Asizi kuvumela ukuphikisana kwemithetho apha. Umzalwane makawufundisise kakuhle lo Mthetho usayilwayo, ngalaa ndlela afunda ngayo ibhayibhile, ade ayiphuphe nokuba ulele, ambone noYesu engenile entliziyweni yakhe. Makawufunde njalo nomthetho, angaxokisi abantu ngoba asinto intle noko ukuba sixokiswe ngabantu abathi bangamaKrestu.
Zikhona ke nezinye izinto ezithethiweyo apha endingafuni kungena kakhulu kuzo, ngoba kaloku ndiyabona ukuba kukho umoya omhle namhlanje kule Ndlu. Ndicela nje ukuba sonke sincedisane ukuqinisekisa ukuba abantwana bethu bakhuselekile, bayawafumana amalungelo abo njengokuba sele kutshiwo apha.
Lo mba wonoontlalontle ekuthiwa abekho asiyo nto ibalulekileyo, ukuba thina sonke besifaka isandla apho kukho ingxaki khona. Kufuneka singahlali ebumnandini simane sikhomba phaya, koko siye sonke siye kuncedisa ukwenzela ukuba sikwazi ukulwa nale ntlupheko.
Abafunda iincwadi ezinkulu ke bayayazi into eya thethwa yenye indoda ethi . . . (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[We are not going to allow different pieces of legislation here. The hon member should read the Bill properly, the way he reads the Bible, and even dream about it and see Jesus in his heart. He should read it and stop lying to people because it is not good for Christians to lie to people.
A great deal more was mentioned, but I do not want to dwell on that because there is a good spirit in the House today. I would like to ask everybody to work together to ensure that our children are protected, as it has been mentioned already by a number of people.
The claim that there are too few social workers would not be such an issue if we all pulled together. We should not relax and only point to problems everywhere, but we should all roll up our sleeves and partake in their fight against poverty.
The learned ones would know what a certain man said . . . ]
. . . let the children come to me and do not stop them, because the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Kuthiwa ke le nto, ukuba uyitolika kakuhle njengokuba ibibekwa apha, ithi, “ümntwana wam ngumntwana wakho”. Ndiyayivuyela nale nto ibithethwa ngamanye amaqela apha, yokuba athi ayawuxhasa lo Mthetho usayilwayo ngaphandle kwalaa mba uthande ukuba yingxaki. Ndide ndizibuze ukuba kanti ubuKrestu obu yintoni na?
Ndiyayivuyela le nto yalo moya mhle kangaka wokuba sivumelane sonke, ngakumbi ngale mini yokugqibela. Sonke masiphume apha simxhelo mnye, siye kukhusela abantwana bethu, ngoba balikamva lethu. Ndiyabulela. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[If all that was said here is interpreted correctly, it would mean that my child is your child and your child is my child. I am happy that most parties support this Bill, except for the clause that seems to be a problem. Sometimes I am even inclined to ask myself what Christianity is.
I have said that I am happy about the positive spirit that exists in the House today, especially on our last day of this session. Let us all go out and protect our children, because they are our future. I thank you. [Applause.]]
The MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Speaker, I stand here to thank the House and all the parties for the co-operation that they have given in ensuring that this Bill sees the light of day. It has taken about nine years – nine full years – for this Bill to be passed by this House. In that time, we consulted almost everybody and all the sectors that were there, because of the complexity of the Bill and the intersectoral participation that has been needed.
We would like, despite all the comments that have been made, to thank almost everybody on the issues. In terms of some of the issues that have been raised, quite obviously cannot necessarily be answered by this Bill.
What I would like to stress is that for this Bill to be a reality in the lives of our people, it should be accepted by almost everybody so that we are able to implement it in all parts of our country. It should not be a Bill only for the urban areas; it should be a Bill for the people of South Africa as a whole – both urban and rural. I think that in ensuring that, we would expect the hon members to be part and parcel of that.
Once again, I say thanks for all your comments, thanks for your participation. I hope that we will be able to work together to ensure that the principles that are set out in this Bill really become a reality for all children of South Africa. South Africa depends on those children for her future. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).
POINT OF ORDER
(Ruling)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon members. Before we move to the second Order of the Day, I would like to make a ruling on what transpired in the House earlier this afternoon.
During members’ statements, hon Trent made certain remarks which suggested that the President might have been involved in irregular activities relating to the arms deal.
Hon Bloem subsequently raised a point of order on the remarks. In response to Mr Bloem’s point of order, I indicated that I would study the Hansard and then give a ruling. I have looked at the Hansard and I wish to rule, as follows: It is established practice that a member who wishes to bring any allegations of improper conduct on the part of another to the attention of the House, including the President, should do so by way of a substantive motion, comprising a clearly formulated and properly substantiated charge or charges.
Except upon such a substantive motion, it has been ruled previously that members should not be allowed to impute improper motives to other members or cast personal reflections on their integrity, or verbally abuse them in any other way.
The remarks made by Mr Trent are therefore out of order, and I would like him to withdraw them. Hon Trent? [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker . . . [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am addressing Mr Trent.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to address you. I want to ask, in terms of which Rule you are ruling, if I may?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am addressing Mr Trent. Mr Trent?
Mr E W TRENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, could you just tell us under which Rule you are ruling, please? [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Trent, I don’t think I am here running a workshop on Rules, which I expect all of us to be familiar with. I would like you to withdraw those words, Mr Trent.
Mr E W TRENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand by my statement . . . [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Trent, are you going to withdraw?
Mr E W TRENT: I am therefore not prepared to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you please leave the Chamber? [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker . . . [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That matter has now been dealt with. We now move to the second . . . [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask, you’ve concluded with Mr Trent . . . [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: On which point are you rising?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I am rising under Rule 66, which refers to reflection on holders of office, like judges, but it is other than members of government . . . [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Gibson, what I have done, right now, has concluded what I wanted to deal with in terms of Mr Trent, and that ends that matter.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you want to deal with my ruling, and you think my ruling is not supposed to have been what it was, you know, as one of our senior Whips in this Parliament, what to do. And you are not going to abuse your powers in the Chamber. I have made that ruling and I have closed that matter. The matter is closed.
I now want to call the secretary to read the second Order of the Day.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Well, then you force me to act as you request. Thank you, I’ll do just that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon, what did you just say?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I said that you then force me to act as you request. I will have to go to another authority. [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Absolutely, that’s fine. That’s okay.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE JUDICIAL MATTERS AMENDMENT BILL.
Order disposed of without debate.
Report adopted.
Agreed to.
JUDICIAL MATTERS AMENDMENT BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Madam Deputy Speaker, as is the practice with Bills of this nature, the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill comprises a number of amendments to laws administered by my department.
The amendments do not require individual amendment to acts; they mainly address certain problem areas, which have arisen in practice. Because the Bill does contain some amendments of a more substantial nature, I would like to use this opportunity to talk about them, particularly those that do more than just amend various technical provisions.
There are, for instance, some provisions that give effect, in one way or another, to government’s long-term vision or pave the way for the implementation of important legislation. The first amendment I would like to speak about is the amendment of section 9 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944, contained in clause 1 one the Bill. This amendment is required in order to address the ever-increasing occurrence of magistrates who vacate the office of magistrate and who have part-heard cases to be finalised. I am heartened by the need for this amendment. Let me expand: The amendment actually originated because some magistrates have vacated the office of magistrate on their appointment as judges in our Superior Courts, requiring statutory sanction for them to dispose of the part-heard cases.
I am heartened, because that shows there is a move towards judges coming up through the ranks, as it were, and proving that they do not only have to be appointed from the ranks of the advocacy, as was traditionally the case.
This amendment indicates to me that some old habits do not die hard and that our vision of a single judiciary is not just a vision on paper. I welcome this amendment, as it signifies more than meets the eye.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill are intended to ensure that the amendments that the department promoted in 2003 dealing with the creation of a Chief Master are taken to their logical conclusion.
Clause 2 consequently extends the definition of Master by stating unequivocally that a Master of a High Court, who’s appointed by the Minister, is subject to the control, direction and supervision of the Chief Master.
Clause 3, in turn, deals, among others, with the relationship between the Minister and Chief Master. It amends section 2 of the Administration of Estates Act of 1965 by stating that the Chief Master is the executive officer of the Master’s offices who will exercise control, direction and supervision over all the Masters, and is subject to the control, direction and supervision of the Minister.
What we are trying to achieve is an effective organisational structure in the component of the department, which is responsible for the Masters of the High Courts.
Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 13(b) of the Attorneys Act. This section, as it stands now, requires all attorneys who, for the first time, intend to practise on their own account or as a partner to complete a mandatory legal practice management course, approved by the council of the law society, in the area of jurisdiction.
When consulting the profession on the implementation of this provision, the profession requested a further amendment to allow for some flexibility in respect of the attendance requirement. For instance, where a person has worked in a management capacity in a law firm for years, or has an MBA, clause 6 gives effect to this request. This amendment will facilitate the implementation of section 13 (b), which will add value.
I also welcome the amendment brought about by clause 7, which amends section 4 of the Right of Appearance in Courts Act of 1995. This amendment, like clause 1, takes the ANC vision, in respect of the legal profession, a step further, this time by allowing an attorney who meets the requirements to appear in a High Court, to appear in any court in the Republic - a right which advocates already enjoy. This will not only enhance access to justice but will open the legal profession to our lawyers who are crying out for an opportunity to ply their trade.
Clause 9 of the Bill is significant and is to be welcomed because it will pave the way for some sections of the Maintenance Act of 1998 which are not yet in operation to be implemented.
Section 5 of the Maintenance Act provides that the Minister or any officer of the department, authorised in writing by the Minister, may appoint in the prescribed manner and on the prescribed conditions one or more persons as maintenance investigators of a maintenance court to exercise or perform any power, duty or function conferred on or assigned to maintenance investigators by or under the Maintenance Act.
The Bill now allows public servants to be appointed as maintenance investigators as well, obviating the immediate need for regulations to spell out the conditions and manner of employment. This being the case, the important provisions of the Maintenance Act dealing with maintenance investigators can now receive priority attention for purposes of implementation.
The Bill amends several sections of the Debt Collectors Act. I will elaborate on some of the more substantial amendments to this Act. It has been established that some debt collectors refuse to register with the debt collectors’ council, these debt collectors argue that they provide administrative functions for an attorney, and that the attorney will then deal with the processing of the documents and the courts.
In this manner, neither the attorney nor the debt collector is registered in terms of the Debt Collectors Act and the council has no control over the activities of such a person, who performs exactly the same functions as the agent or employee of a debt collector. Thank you. [Time expired.][Applause.]
Ms F I CHOHAN-KHOTA: Chairperson, hon members, the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill is traditionally a collage of various amendments that are required in a host of different Acts to accommodate different aspects in law, relating in some instances to the clarification of the intention of the legislature, sometimes providing for new procedures in law, sometimes even to clean up our laws by removing redundant sections of the law, and sometimes affecting other technical changes. The Bill before us today reflects all of these objectives and as such deals with a host of different legislation. I wish to deal with some of these provisions in my speech today.
An important amendment affects the Companies Act of 1973. This Act provides that the Master of the High Court may decline in certain circumstances to appoint a liquidator chosen by the majority of creditors and may after certain processes appoint a substitute liquidator. The amendment before us provides that in this circumstance the Master must now appoint such a liquidator in accordance with policy determined by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development. The amendment, hopefully, will result in the more equitable distribution to a range of liquidators and so avoid the perception of overbriefing, collusion or even corruption on the part of the Masters’ Offices.
By effecting amendments to the administration of a state’s Act, this Bill also regulates the concept of a Chief Master, who is to be the executive officer of the Masters’ Offices and who shall exercise control, direction and supervision over all Masters of the High Courts. The Chief Master is in turn subject to the control, direction and supervision of the Minister.
This raised some debate in the committee, because it was suggested by some that it was an attempt to undermine the existing powers of the Masters. Part of the problem here is that while our Masters’ Offices have, in the past, operated with a measure of independence, it is necessary to implement basic, uniform and transparent practices and policies. The appointment of a Chief Master in this regard will hopefully allow for a mechanism whereby such uniform policies and practices may be determined and co-ordinated without unduly and adversely impacting on existing Masters’ Offices. Transparency and uniformity and good business practices are essential for a structure of a department which, some estimates suggest, deal with upward of R1 billion per year.
Section 5 of the Maintenance Act provides that the Minister may appoint one or more persons as maintenance investigators of a maintenance court to exercise or perform any duty or function conferred on it under the Maintenance Act. Clause 9 has been inserted to allow public servants to be appointed as maintenance investigators. The lack of maintenance personnel in our court is a perennial complaint and I am glad that the Minister has today committed herself and her department to prioritising the appointments of these individuals.
In terms of the Right of Appearance in Courts Act, certain attorneys were given the right to appear in the High Court previously by this Parliament. However, this measure has given rise to many overt and covert practices designed to undermine the intention of this legislature. Our amendment today ensures that an attorney who has been given the right to appear in one High Court may appear in any High Court within the Republic.
The attorneys’ profession had previously suggested that all attorneys who have been admitted should undergo a further legal practice management course prior to beginning actual practice as an attorney. The profession has now requested the power to exempt certain people, such as individuals who have equivalent qualifications, such as MBAs, or who have appropriate managerial experience.
We have acceded to their request, bearing in mind the hon Koos Van der Merwe’s concerns that this management course should be integrated and incorporated into the board exams that prospective attorneys have to write and not be a further hurdle for prospective attorneys to overcome. His comments in this regard are worth noting, and we will certainly be looking very keenly at how the various law societies implement these provisions.
Quite a few amendments in this Bill are directed at the Debt Collectors Act. Debt collecting had in the past been fairly unregulated in our country and many people had been subjected to debt collecting tactics and practices that infringe on individual privacy and dignity. The establishment of the Debt Collectors Council has been a marked achievement that has benefited the debt collector’s profession, as well as the general public. With the council coming into its own, however, few adjustments to the establishing Act have now become necessary. It has firstly become necessary, as the Minister has indicated, to extend the definition of who is a debt collector.
It must be noted, also, that attorneys are excluded from the Debt Collectors Act and from the code of conduct of a debt collector. The committee has now called for a harmonisation of the codes governing attorneys and debt collectors who are not attorneys, so that a single set of regulations applies to all who are in the business of debt collecting. The council of debt collectors is to keep and publish a register of all registered debt collectors, as well as those whose registration has been cancelled.
The amendments in the Bill before us regulate publication obligations of the council, so as to inform the general public about who may or may not practice as a debt collector. It is noteworthy that the council for debt collectors has recently embarked on their first prosecutions against unregistered debt collectors, and we wish them well in this regard. The council is, through this legislation, given the power to cancel registration of certain debt collectors upon their own request.
Interest accrued to debt collectors’ trust accounts shall accrue to the council less any bank charges that the debt collectors may accrue. This is in line with provisions of other professions running trust accounts, such as the sheriff’s profession. This provision was necessitated by the fact that the previous sections that provided that interest accrued in relation to any amounts collected on behalf of any person be paid to that person, have proven difficult to implement, as the interest in most cases amounts to minimal sums and the administrative work involved was time consuming. It was felt that a once-off payment to the council for debt collectors was more expedient.
Provision is now made for the council to take interim control of the trust account of a debt collector immediately, if a debt collector dies, becomes insolvent and various other aspects which render a debt collector unable to continue practising. The council will surrender control of the accounts to a curator bonis appointed by the Master of the relevant High Court, once such person has been appointed.
Lastly, let me deal with section 10 of the implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act of 2002. This Act regulates proceedings before a competent court after arrest for purposes of surrender. The amendment in this Act merely clarifies and makes explicit the intention of the legislature to the effect that upon finding certain requirements for prosecution and sentencing by the International Criminal Court and finding that these requirements have been met, a domestic court must order that such a person be surrendered to the International Criminal Court and that he or she be committed to prison, pending such surrender.
It is an important obligation on our part and this rather technical amendment, I believe, will go a long way into us meeting many of our international obligations in this regard. I do thank members for their attention. [Applause.]
Mrs S M CAMERER: Madam Chair, this “rommelkas” Bill is a compendium of amendments to various statutes, none of them particularly sexy, save perhaps for an amendment to the Promotion of Equality Act to include intersex, together with sex and gender, as prohibitive grounds for discrimination. This is reasonable, because intersex is the updated term for a hermaphrodite and the omission left a lacuna.
None of the amendments is controversial and the DA supports the Bill. We welcome other amendments, including an amendment to the Magistrates’ Court Act, to deal with a situation where a magistrate vacates office but still has partly heard matters; an amendment to the Companies Act to bring it into line with other legislation regarding the appointment of liquidators and judicial managers; an amendment to the Attorneys Act, which was requested by the legal profession requiring attorneys practising on their own account for the first time to complete a legal practice management course, which is an excellent development; an amendment to the Right of Appearance in Courts Act, allowing any attorney who has been granted the right of appearance in the High Court to appear in any court in the Republic, which, as the Minister has indicated, is overdue.
There are also several amendments to the Debt Collectors Act requested by the Debt Collectors Council and protecting the public from irregular practices in the debt collecting industry and which all appear to be improvements to the Act, and there are sensible technical and procedural amendments to other Acts.
I would like to highlight an amendment to the problematic Maintenance Act, which has suffered as a result of failure to implement properly key aspects of this legislation. This new Act, which, on paper, was a big improvement on the previous law, was launched with much fanfare as a new deal for the literally millions of women in our country who struggle to get maintenance for their children, and sometimes themselves, from errant fathers and partners.
The key to its success was to be the appointment of maintenance investigators at all main court centres. The perennial core difficulty with getting maintenance was therefore recognised, namely tracing these men – and it is nearly always men. As I know from the endless stream of letters I receive from angry and despairing women, the capacity of our courts to trace and serve process on these men is abysmally low. Even when the woman and her family know exactly where the man works or resides, and can tell the court, the court is often ineffectual in reeling him in.
For the first five years after the Act was passed, no investigators were appointed. Eventually, after many appeals from the DA, other opposition parties and civil society, in 2004, funds from the Director-General’s budget were allocated for the appointment of a few investigators on a pilot project basis. The R35 million needed for a countrywide rollout was not budgeted for. If this measure to designate officials of the courts in general or maintenance courts in particular to act as maintenance investigators is intended to fill this gap in the successful functioning of this legislation, it is indeed to be welcomed.
As the Minister is aware, our maintenance courts are the busiest courts in the country, and I would like to appeal to the Minister to implement this measure as soon as possible so that every maintenance court will have a competent maintenance investigator assisting with this task. The failure of the maintenance courts to deliver justice to so many women legitimately seeking maintenance for their children is the major criticism levelled by women against our justice system. The women of South Africa deserve better. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mnr L K JOUBERT: Geagte Voorsitter, ons wysig met hierdie wysigingswetsontwerp 11 verskillende wette. Ons hoofsweep verwys na hierdie tipe wetgewing as rommelkaswetgewing. [Chairperson, with this amendment Bill we will amend 11 different Acts. Our Chief Whip describes this type of legislation as an omnibus Act.]
The English term of “omnibus legislation” does not quite convey the same meaning. However, the majority of the amendments are of a technical nature and would not have been necessary had we applied our minds properly in the first place.
The amendment to the Right of Appearance in Courts Act was necessitated by a judgment that completely misinterpreted the intention of the original Act. The time has come that the deliberations in committees, and especially the Minister’s address in the Second Reading debate, be given the weight it deserves in the interpretation of statutes. That, and not a theoretical exercise, surely more accurately indicates the true intention of the legislator.
As far as the Attorneys Act is concerned, the provision for exemption from the attendance of a legal practice management course is again, I think, the result of not applying our minds properly when the original amendment was passed. Attorneys write a comprehensive entry exam before being admitted. Surely, the appropriate thing is that this should be part of the entry exam and not a post facto requirement. By requiring further qualifications after admission is like allowing a couple to marry, but not to conceive offspring without the church’s consent. Kodwa Sihlalo siyavuma.[But we agree, Chair.]
Die HUISVOORSITTER (Me C-S Botha): Baie dankie, agb lid, dat u in twee minute met sulke wetgewing kon klaarspeel! Die agb Swart, wat net één minuut het vir hierdie wetgewing, is volgende. [Thank you, hon member, for disposing of such legislation in two minutes! The hon Swart, who only has one minute for this legislation, is next.]
Mr S N SWART: Chairperson, section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Act entitles a victim of crime to have a say when an accused is considered for parole or correctional supervision, and the amendment to that Act enables the identity and whereabouts of the complainant to be kept confidential, and also provides a mechanism for informing the complainant of his or her rights, and clearly, this the ACDP supports.
We also support the views contained in the report that the issue of confidentiality should be addressed in the Bill itself and not in directives, and we think that that is something that the department should look at.
As far as amendments to the debt collecting legislation is concerned, we also agree with the amendments and that the department should investigate the desirability of a single statute covering all aspects of debt collection. Having looked at the Bill, we support all the provisions, we’re pleased to say, and I don’t want to repeat what all the other speakers have said, suffice to say that the ACDP will vote in favour of this Bill. Thank you very much. One minute gone! [Laughter.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Quite an achievement! Hon Pheko, I’ll give you an extra minute if you want.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Well, with my one minute, Madam Chair, I simply want to say that times have moved since 1944 and there have been radical changes. It is therefore logical that the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944 must be amended. [Interjections.] The Judicial Matters Amendment Bill is therefore to provide for the disposal of part of cases by permanently appointed magistrates who vacate the office of magistrate.
This Bill is to bring changes also to the Administration of Estates Act of 1965 and many other Acts from 1973 to 2000. This includes the implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act of 2002. Its purpose is to clarify the provision regarding the surrender of a person to the International Criminal Court.
Section 1 of the Administration of Estates Act of 1965 is being amended by the substitution for the definition of “Master”. “Master” will now mean Master, Deputy Master or Assistant Master or a High Court appointed under section 2. The PAC supports this Bill.
Since I’ve been given an extra minute, I want to say to you to love Azania. You love Azania, long live Azania! One day we’ll give you a beautiful poem about Azania. I just want to say that we should avoid polemics in this Parliament, because it is a very cheap commodity and we can specialise in it too when people bring polemics here. Let us be mature members of Parliament who address issues, not personalities. [Interjections.] Izwe lethu! Izwe lethu! [Our country! Our country!] Viva Azania, viva! [Interjections.]
Mr R B BHOOLA: Madam Chairperson, the MF supports a number of Acts that this Bill serves to amend and that saves the House from the tedious task of dealing with each amended Act individually. Amendments made to section 9 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, Act 32 of 1944, with regard to proceedings are supported. Appointments made in accordance with the Administration of Estates Act of 1965 that are amended are accepted and the amendments to section 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 are justified.
The MF gladly supports amendments regarding maintenance investigators of section 5 of the Maintenance Act of 1998. Provisions made to sections 1, 12, 16 and 20 of the Debt Collectors Act of 1998 are also supported. The MF, in view of all the amended Acts, voices its support for the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill. I thank you.
Mr L T LANDERS: Chairperson, clause 1 of this Bill seeks to correct a serious anomaly in our law, whereby magistrates who are appointed as judges must or can now dispose of their partly heard cases. A case in point is the example of a magistrate in KwaZulu-Natal who recently, in the midst of a long and complicated trial involving some 100 witnesses, was appointed to be a judge. In terms of the amendment before us, that magistrate can come back and dispose of the matter before him.
The second point, which I want to make in this particular debate, is the amendment to the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Act 3 of 2000. The ANC never wanted the code of good practice, which the Minister will now bring about, to be part of our law, but rather to be a guide, which would assist administrators to make their administrative decisions. We’re pleased to note that the amendments provided for in this Bill follow that position of the ANC.
With those few words, I also support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Chair, I think the House will agree with me that there is overwhelming support, and I thank the members for the support. We note, of course, some of the concerns that have been mentioned around maintenance, especially the need to speedily implement. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT – MAGISTRATES R AMEER AND M K CHAUKE AND SENIOR
MAGISTRATES M S MAKAMU AND M J S NHLEKO
Ms F I CHOHAN-KHOTA: Chairperson, members, today we consider four reports in terms of the Magistrates Act, Act 90 of 1993, relating to the provisional suspensions of magistrates R Ameer, additional magistrate of Pinetown; M J S Nhleko, senior magistrate at Lusikisiki; M S Makamu, senior magistrate at Benoni and M K Chauke, additional magistrate at Pretoria.
Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Magistrates Act, Act 90 of 1993, which was amended in 2003, reads as follows:
The Minister, on the advice of the Commission, may provisionally suspend
a magistrate from office if –
the Commission, after affording the magistrate a reasonable
opportunity to be heard regarding the desirability of such provisional
suspension, is satisfied that reliable evidence exists indicating
that an allegation against that magistrate
is of such a serious nature as to make it inappropriate for
the magistrate to perform the functions of a magistrate while
the allegation is being investigated . . .
As such, it is the prerogative of the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development to provisionally suspend a member of the magistrates’ profession from office. Section 13(3)(b) reads in part as follows:
A report in which the provisional suspension . . . of a magistrate and
the reasons therefore are made known, must be tabled in Parliament by
the Minister within seven days of such suspension . . .
Accordingly, and on 13 April 2005, in each of these cases the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development tabled in Parliament separate reports in terms of section 13(3)(b)
Section 13(3)(c) and (d) of the Magistrates Act read together as follows: Parliament must, as soon as it is reasonably possible, pass a resolution as to whether or not the provisional suspension of the magistrate is confirmed. If Parliament passes a resolution as contemplated in paragraph (c) that the provisional suspension is not confirmed, the suspension lapses.
The reports were referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration. As indicated a few weeks ago, when the House approved the removal of certain magistrates from office, the committee, which was sitting behind closed doors, enquired into procedural as well as substantive matters prior to making any recommendations to this House.
Upon enquiry by the committee, it was established that in all four of these cases, the magistrates concerned were in fact suspended on a date prior to the Minister’s decision on 13 April 2005. Mr R Ameer, magistrate, was suspended by the Magistrates Commission on 16 August 2004; Mr M J S Nhleko, magistrate, was suspended by the Magistrates Commission on 3 December 2004; Mr M S Makamu, magistrate, was suspended by the Magistrates Commission on 3 August 2004 and Mr M K Chauke, magistrate, was suspended by the Magistrates’ Commission on 6 October 2004.
It appears that the Magistrates Commission acted in these matters in terms of powers afforded to it prior to the 2003 amendment of the Magistrates Act and accordingly erred in its actions. The committee considered the possibility of condoning the action of the Magistrates Commission. However, it decided that this would be legally tenuous and in any event would not have complied with the requirement of section 13(3)(e) of the Magistrates Act, which requires that an enquiry commence within 60 days of a provisional suspension.
Accordingly the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, having considered the four reports, is of the opinion that the procedures prescribed by the Magistrates Act of 1993 were not complied with, and accordingly recommends that the House resolves not to confirm the provisional suspensions of Mr R Ameer, Mr M J S Nhleko, Mr M S Makamu and Mr M K Chauke.
We recommend further that the House urge the Magistrates Commission to urgently finalise the disciplinary enquiries in these matters in order to bring them to finality. I thank you.
There was no debate.
Question put: That the recommendations of the committee be adopted, namely that the provisional suspensions of the magistrates in question not be confirmed by the House.
Question agreed to.
Provisional suspensions of Magistrate R Ameer, Magistrate M K Chauke, Senior Magistrate M S Makamu and Senior Magistrate M J S Nhleko accordingly not confirmed by the House.
Consideration of request for approval by Parliament of agreement between the Republic of South Africa and THE Republic of Turkey for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital Gains
Consideration of request for approval by Parliament of Convention between the Government of the republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Gabon for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income
Consideration of request for approval by Parliament of Convention between the Government of the republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Ghana for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income AND CAPITAL GAINS
Consideration of request for approval by Parliament of Convention between the Government of the republic of South Africa and the Government of the DEMOCRATIC Republic of CONGO for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): Before I call the hon Davies to introduce the report of the committee, I would like to take this opportunity for this House to congratulate him on his appointment as Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry – a position I am sure he will fill with skill and dedication. [Applause.]
Dr R H DAVIES: Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues, for your good wishes. I am looking forward to new challenges and this is my last act as Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Finance. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the colleagues in the Portfolio Committee on Finance for all the co-operation and for the wonderful working relationships that we have had in the past. [Applause.]
The conventions or agreements for the avoidance of the double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion have been entered into since 1994 with a relatively long list of countries from all parts of the world. Generally they assist in the promotion of economic interaction by assuring that persons from one country or jurisdiction who undertake economic activity in the other contracting party will not be subject to tax in both jurisdictions. They also provide for co-operation between the taxation authorities of both countries to co-operate against fiscal evasion.
There are two standard models or formats that have governed these kinds of agreements across the world: one was drawn up by the UN and the other by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The agreements that South Africa has been party to have generally followed the format of the OECD. However, there are always specific variations depending on the specific circumstances in the countries with whom we are negotiating. These variations are generally very small but do reflect specific circumstances in other countries.
Today we are asking the House to approve four such agreements: The first with the Republic of Turkey, and then three with African countries namely with the Republic of Gabon, the Republic of Ghana, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The formats of all of these are very much standard agreements. There are very small variations and the portfolio committee was satisfied with these. We have pleasure in commending them to the House and look forward to the support of the House for the approval of these double taxation agreements. Thank you, Chair. [Applause.]
Agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF ACCESSION TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS AGAINST THE SAFETY OF MARITIME NAVIGATION AND TO THE PROTOCOL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS AGAINST THE SAFETY OF FIXED PLATFORMS LOCATED ON THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
Mr J P CRONIN: Thank you, Chairperson. When I see something that reads “suppression of”, it makes me very nervous but fortunately this is not a Suppression of Communism Act. Unfortunately, it is not the Suppression of Capitalism Act yet but we will get there. [Interjections.] Yes, indeed.
What we have got in front of us today is one international convention and one protocol. The Convention reads “the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation”, basically referring to an international convention dealing with unlawful acts directed at shipping. The second protocol, which was related to that, deals with unlawful acts directed at what is called fixed platforms on the continental shelves. I think it refers to things like oil leaks and the like.
This convention and this protocol were adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation, which is part of the UN family. They are actually quite old. They were adopted in 1988 in Rome but, of course, apartheid South Africa at that stage was not participating in the UN family of organisations, including the International Maritime Organisation.
However, it is very much in our interest as a country to take these kinds of conventions quite seriously. South Africa has a very long coastline indeed. Our economy is very dependent on exports and imports, more than 90% of which are sea borne. We also have very extensive maritime responsibilities in terms of rescue and surveillance, and so forth. Those responsibilities stretch far into the South Atlantic Ocean, halfway to Latin America, halfway to Australia in the case of the Indian Ocean, down to the Antarctic Ocean. And we also have many responsibilities up our east and west coast in regard to our neighbouring countries.
In October, the International Maritime Organisation will be convening once more to consider and to update the convention and the protocol. Therefore, it’s very important that, out of national interest, South Africa takes an active part in the proceedings of the IMO in October in London. [Applause.] That was not applause for the suggestion that we should be active in participating in London.
The committee has had a close look at the convention and the protocol; the State Law Advisors advised us that there is nothing in the protocol and in the convention that in any way contravenes our domestic law. I also had a close look to see if there is anything that might affect the rights of workers on ships and on oil leaks and, as far as I could see, there was nothing of that kind.
Therefore, as a committee we unanimously recommend that Parliament endorses the proposal that South Africa should accede to this convention and to this protocol. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
There was no debate.
Agreed to.
APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY PRESIDENT PUMZILE MLAMBO-NGCUKA
(Draft Resolution)
- The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes the appointment today of the Hon Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka as Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa;
(2) recognises the sterling contribution she has made, and continues to make, in the service of our country and its people and remembers that, since becoming a Member of Parliament in 1994, she has served in various capacities, including member of the Portfolio Committee on Education, Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry and Minister of Minerals and Energy;
(3) congratulates the Hon Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka on her appointment as the Deputy President of South Africa and wishes her success in her new and very important role.
Agreed to.
NATIONAL PORTS BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: I move:
That the Bill, as amended, be passed.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Chair, I just want to say that the DA concurs fully with this particular suggestion of the Chief Whip.
Mrs S A SEATON: The IFP is more than pleased with the decision. [Applause.]
Motion agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly passed.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms C-S Botha): May I wish all of you a very successful – what is it called – constituency period. May I also acknowledge the appointment of Mrs Thabethe. [Applause.]
Mr G G OLIPHANT: Madam Chair, the Environment and Tourism study group is very proud to say that we produced a Deputy Minister, a Deputy Speaker and a president for the world organisation. Viva Environment and Tourism! Viva!
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY ON
MEMBERS’FACILITIES
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Chairperson, I move:
That the House –
(1) adopts the policy, as presented, on Facilities for Members of the National Assembly and Permanent Delegates to the National Council of Provinces; and
(2) noting that a range of issues still requires further attention, mandates the Presiding Officers to initiate a process to give further consideration to relevant issues.
Agreed to.
ANNOUNCEMENT
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are having a very important occasion immediately after adjournment. We are celebrating the 80th birthday of one of the members of the House and all members are invited to the Good Hope Chamber. [Applause.]
The House adjourned at 16:51. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent
(1) Bills passed by National Assembly on 22 June 2005:
(i) National Ports Bill [B 5F – 2003] (National Assembly – sec
75)
(2) Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 22 June 2005:
(i) Intergovernmental Relations Framework Bill [B 3B – 2005]
(National Assembly – sec 75)
(ii) Re-determination of the Boundaries of Cross-Boundary
Municipalities Bill [B 12 – 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75)
(iii) Co-operatives Bill [B 4B – 2005] (National Assembly – sec
75)
(iv) Minerals and Energy Laws Amendment Bill [B 1 – 2005]
(National Assembly – sec 75)
National Assembly
-
Referrals to committees of papers tabled
(1) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and report:
Report on the withholding of remuneration of Mr. H W Moldenhauer, Chief Magistrate, Pretoria, tabled in terms of section 13(4A)(b) of the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act No 90 of 1993).(2) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration:
Interim Report of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) for the period April 2004 to September 2004 [RP 128-2004].(3) The following paper is referred to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security:
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the African Union Contributing South African Police Service Monitors to the Civilian Police Component of the African Union Mission in the Darfur Region of the Republic of Sudan (AMIS), tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.(4) The following papers are referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development:
Report of the Judicial Service Commission for 2004. Government Notice No R.415 published in Government Gazette No 27549 dated 29 April 2005: Amendment of Regulations in terms of the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, 2001 (Act No 47 of 2001). Proclamation No R.21 published in Government Gazette No 27549 dated 29 April 2005: Extension of the period of operation of sections 51 and 52 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1997 (Act No 105 of 1997). (Approved by the House on 12 April 2005).
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Finance
(1) Report of the Registrar of Long-Term Insurance for 2003.
(2) Report of the Registrar of Short-Term Insurance for 2003.
(3) Government Notice No R.456 published in Government Gazette No
27580 dated 20 May 2005: Amendment of Money Laundering Control
Regulations in terms of section 77 of the Financial Intelligence
Centre Act, 2001 (Act No 38 of 2001).
(4) Government Notice No R.455 published in Government Gazette No
27580 dated 20 May 2005: Cancellation and Appointment of an
Authorised Dealer in Foreign Exchange in terms of the Currency and
Exchange Act, 1933 (Act No 9 of 1933).
(5) Government Notice No 765 published in Government Gazette No
27599 dated 27 May 2005: Amendment of the List of Public Entities
in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (Act No 1 of
1999).