WEDNESDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2005 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

                                ____

The Council met at 14:00.

The Deputy Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

                          NOTICES OF MOTION

Mnr C J VAN ROOYEN: Voorsitter, ek stel voor:

Dat die Raad –

    1) kennis neem van die huidige DA-plakkaatveldtog in ’n poging om
       hul steun te verdubbel in die komende plaaslike verkiesing;


    2) dat die veldtog nog ’n bewys is van ‘n opportunistiese en
       wanhopige party om steun te verwerf onder ’n kieserskorps wat
       hulle alreeds gedurende die algemene verkiesing van 2004 verwerp
       het;

    3) dat die DA nie die publiek moet mislei nie deur voor te gee dat
       hulle enige kans het om hul steun te verdubbel; en

    4) dat dit nog ’n bewys is dat die DA steeds nie in voeling is met
       die meerderheid van die mense in die land nie en nog minder met
       die politieke werklikhede van ’n demokratiese Suid-Afrika. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Chairperson, I hereby give notice:

That the Council –

  (1)   notes the current DA poster campaign in an effort to double
       their support in the coming local elections;


  (2)   further notes that this campaign is another example of an
       opportunistic and desperate party to gain support from an
       electorate that has already rejected them during the 2004
       general elections;


  (3)   requests that the DA not mislead the public by pretending that
       they have any chance of doubling their support; and


  (4)   acknowledges that this is another example that the DA is still
       not in touch with the majority of people in the country and even
       less so with the political realities of a democratic South
       Africa.]

Mnr M O ROBERTSON: Voorsitter, ek stel voor:

Dat die Raad –

    1) kennis neem van die DA-leier se onlangse brief in die Sunday
       Times;


    2) kennis neem van die beweerde korrupsie in die Wes-Kaapse
       munisipaliteit wat onder die DA se beheer is;

    3) dat daar nog nie deur die DA teen die persone wat betrokke was
       by die beweerde korrupsie opgetree is nie;

    4) hulle versoek word om op te hou om die mense van die Wes-Kaap te
       mislei deur voor te gee dat daar tans geen ekonomiese groei,
       dienslewering en deursigtige regering in die Wes-Kaap is nie; en

    5) die DA daarop gewys word dat hulle, soos die leuens wat hulle
       versprei, gedurende die komende plaaslike verkiesing deur die
       kiesers in die Wes-Kaap verwerp sal word. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)

[Mr M O ROBERTSON: Chairperson, I hereby give notice:

That the Council –

  (1)   notes the recent letter from the DA leader in the Sunday Times;


  (2)   notes the alleged corruption in the Western Cape municipality
       under DA control;


  (3)   further notes that the DA has not yet taken any steps against
       the persons who were involved in the alleged corruption;


  (4)   requests the DA to stop misleading the people of the Western
       Cape by pretending that at present there is no economic growth,
       service delivery and transparent government in the Western Cape;
       and


  (5)   points out to the DA that they, as well as the lies they spread,
       will be rejected by the voters during the coming local
       government elections.]

Mr M A MZIZI: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of this Council I shall move on behalf of the IFP:

That the NCOP –

    1) notes that anybody who is caught employing an illegal immigrant
       will be fined;


    2) further notes that illegal immigrants are usually exploited by
       their employers, who take advantage of the fact that they are
       too afraid to go to the police;

    3) acknowledges that there is a shortage of jobs in South Africa
       and employers who employ illegal immigrants usually do so at a
       wage that is below the minimum wage requirements; and

    4) urges the relevant authorities to continue their fight against
       these unscrupulous employers who take advantage of the situation
       that illegal immigrants are in by exploiting them.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Deputy Chairperson, a slight amendment to hon Mzizi’s motion, to say “knowingly”, because if you pass the motion as it is, you are placing a burden on employers. At times, people present fake documents stating that he is a lawful immigrant. Later, the employer finds out that he is an illegal immigrant.

             HELICOPTER ACCIDENT IN RICHARD́S BAY HARBOUR


                         (Draft Resolution)

Nkk J N VILAKAZI: Sihlalo, ngiphakamisa ngaphandle kwesaziso:

Ukuthi lo Mkhandlu –

  (1)   uzwakalisa ukudabuka okukhulu futhi uzwelana nechweba lase-
       Richards Bay ngesehlakalo esenzeke ngoMgqibelo ntambama mhla zi-
       3 kuMandulo sokuphahlazeka kwendiza esikhumulweni semikhumbi;


  (2)   uyezwa ukuthi kulesi sehlakalo kade bebathathu abantu kodwa kufe
       umuntu oyedwa obengunjiniyela wezindiza, kwathi umshayeli yena
       walimala kakhulu, kanti omunye imchithele emanzini wasizwa
       ngabatshuzi abakade besebenza emapayipini emkhunjini;


  (3)   uyabonga kakhulu kulabo ababe lusizo kule nhlekelele;


  (4)   uyothokoza kakhulu uma abocwaningo olwenziwayo bengayithola
       imbangela yale ngozi;


  (5)   uthi kumndeni olahlekelwe: dudu, sikhala kanye nani! akwehlanga
       lungehlanga! Futhi


       (6)   uthi kwabezindiza uyazwelana nabo ngesimo abahlangabezane
       naso emsebenzini wabo obaluleke kangaka. (Translation of draft resolution follows.)

[Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I move without notice:

That the Council -

  (1)   conveys its heartfelt condolences and sympathises with the
       Richard’s Bay Harbour authorities regarding the crash of a
       helicopter on Saturday afternoon;


  (2)   notes that three people were involved in this, that the engineer
       died and the pilot sustained serious injuries, while the other
       pilot who was flung into the sea was rescued by divers who were
       conducting pipeline repairs;


  (3)   thanks all those who played a role in the rescue operation;


  (4)   will appreciate it if the investigators could establish the
       cause of this accident;


  (5)   says to the family of the deceased: be comforted, we are with
       you in this grief. May his soul rest in peace; and


  (6)   conveys its sympathies to the aviation sector regarding what has
       befallen them in their crucial work.]

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

      ARMAMENTS CORPORATION OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD AMENDMENT BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P HOLLANDER): We want to welcome our hon national Minister of Defence, Minister Lekota, to the House today. We hope you feel welcome with us. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Madam Deputy Chair, one of the cornerstones of the current government is good governance and accountability - the strict separation of different functions and roles. It is important that when a situation arises, involving such a potential conflict, that it be addressed as soon as it is noticed.

When Cabinet approved the introduction of the Armaments Corporation of South Africa Ltd Bill into Parliament in 2003, Cabinet indicated that the Chief of the SA National Defence Force should not – I underline “not” - sit on the board of directors or on the board of the corporation.

The reason was that membership of the board by the Chief of the SA National Defence Force could constitute a potential conflict of interests, and such a conflict would arise from the fact that the chief would have been part of the decision to determine the requirements of the SA National Defence Force, as well as of the decision to determine procurement and acquisition, and the decision regarding which supplier should provide goods and services.

Similarly, the inclusion of the Secretary for Defence on the board of directors of Armscor raises a potential conflict of interests in view of the supporting role that he or she plays as head of the department towards the Minister in exercising political oversight over Armscor.

As head of the department and accounting officer, the Secretary for Defence is responsible for ensuring compliance with prescribed rules and regulations for acquisition purposes. As head of the department and also sitting on the Armscor board, he or she cannot therefore be expected to account for the ensuring of effective and efficient utilisation of transferred funds or any financial assistance rendered to Armscor and also be accountable in terms of his or her membership to the board of the same institution. This will not enable him or her to exercise his or her judgment objectively and independently, as he or she will be referee and player at the same time.

Before the House, therefore, is the Armaments Corporations of South Africa Ltd Amendment Bill. This Bill seeks to remove the Chief of the SA National Defence Force and the Secretary for Defence from the board of directors of Armscor.

It is within this context that I introduce the Armaments Corporation of South Africa Ltd Amendment Bill for the approval of the House. I do hope that opposition parties will support the House’s approval of this Bill, as it is a testimony . . .[Interjections.] They have democratic rights to resist, sir.

I do hope that opposition parties will support the House’s approval of this Bill, as it is a testimony that the ANC-led government is serious about ensuring good governance and accountability in and between all state structures.

We inherited Armscor from the old order, when it was utilised as a sanctions buster. After our first 10 years of democracy and leading into the second decade of democracy, we have to take stock of what we have achieved and what we want to achieve through our programme of action. This programme of action involves, among others, the transformation of society and all the state institutions.

The transformation of Armscor is an ongoing commitment on the part of the Department of Defence, and in introducing an amendment to this Bill we are paving the way for the further transformation and repositioning of Armscor as an institution that operates as a service provider to the Department of Defence. I thank you, Madam Deputy Chairperson. [Applause.]

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, hon Minister, colleagues, when the department tabled this Bill before the select committee it was clear that this was one of the shortest Bills we had ever come across in the history of Parliament, since 1994.

Participation by members of this committee was intense and vigorous. Let me tell you that I am here to express our thanks to the opposition party members who serve on my committee, because they are so considerate and very understanding. They are not opposing for the sake of opposing.

When we discussed this Bill they were so supportive, to the extent that they even said that in their opinion it was not important for us, as the NCOP, to debate this kind of a Bill.

But people had to know and hear what exactly this Bill is all about, hence this debate. On that note, my detachment will come after me to deal with other issues. I therefore want to say that we are pleased to say that my committee supports this Bill unreservedly. Therefore, instead of repeating exactly what the Minister has said, like the old records - His Master’s Voice with a smaller head - we endorse the Bill.

Colleagues, just sit back and relax. You will hear what my detachment is going to say in support of this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr A L MOSEKI: Chairperson, I am tempted not to read the speech, after what the Kgoshi has said. Maybe, in a traditional way, I should say: “Ke la me leo, Kgoshi . . . [Those are my sentiments exactly, Kgoshi . . .] . . . and stop there, because you have actually put this across in a very nice way.

Minister, indeed, it is true what Kgoshi is saying, that as a committee we were very excited when this Bill was presented to us. We were excited because it was the shortest Bill that we had ever seen. Part of the excitement stemmed from the fact that as a developing state we want to remain accountable to the citizens of this country.

By so doing, we are trying to put in place systems that will assist us, as a country and as a developing state, to ensure that we remain accountable and that the integrity of everything that we do as a government remains intact. We clearly understood where this proposal came from and the perspective from which it was made. We also agree that none of us, as servants of the people, can be a referee and a player at the same time. We are really convinced of this. Having listened to the department, they tried to make this Bill a very long one, despite its shortness. They really made an attempt to ensure that it is very long.

But having understood the objective and the long-term aim behind these things, the committee did not see the necessity to really express different views around this matter. As members of the committee we want to say, as Kgoshi has already indicated, that we fully support this Bill, because in our view it is actually consolidating or enhancing our democratic systems. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr J W LE ROUX: Deputy Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our chairperson and, as you can see, he has such faith in the DA that he has left to me all the hard work of explaining the Bill.

After listening to the Minister, I would also like to add the fact that we should avoid any conflict of interests. It is just proper and right that the Chief of the SA National Defence Force and the Secretary for Defence should not to serve on the board of directors of Armscor.

The controversial arms deal has seriously damaged the image of South Africa, and this is indeed a step in the right direction.

The DA supports the Bill, as we do all pieces of good legislation. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr Z C NTULI: Chairperson, the Minister of Defence, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends. Today we debate a Bill that proposes the removal of both the Secretary for Defence and Chief of the SANDF from the board of directors of Armaments Corporation of South Africa Ltd, commonly known as Armscor.

Without any doubt, having the Chief of the SANDF and Secretary for Defence as members of the board of Armscor, while occupying senior positions in Defence, creates the possibility of conflict of interests when it comes to purchasing and acquisition of armaments.

This is so because, while the Chief of the SANDF and Secretary for Defence are expected to oversee and monitor utilisation of funds in the acquisition of armaments, such senior officials would also be involved in the buying of armaments.

As the ANC we are committed to ensuring good and clean corporate governance in government and all institutions, which are agents of our government. Surely, good corporate governance and conflict of interests cannot be mutually inclusive because the latter compromises professionalism, which is the basic tenet of good corporate governance.

The writer, Michael Macdonald, defines conflict of interests, as:

A situation in which a person, such as a public official, and an employee or a professional, has a private or personal interest sufficient to appear to influence the objective exercise of his or her official duties.

Michael Macdonald goes on to state, that:

The problem comes when private interests come into conflict with an official duty. Quite literally, the duty you have because you have an office or act in an official capacity.

Within the context of leaving no breathing space for, for instance, negative journalism about our democratic state, let us make sure that we prevent newspaper headlines such as: “Chief of SANDF caught in conflict of interests”, or “Secretary for Defence denies conflict of interests allegations”.

Once again, being committed to clean corporate governance within government and beyond, the ANC supports this Bill. It supports this Bill because the Bill does not only provide for the removal of Chief of SANDF and Secretary for Defence from the board of directors of Armscor but, in effect, it also removes the possibility of these senior Defence officials from being trapped in conflict of interests in the acquisition of armaments. I thank you.

Mnu M A MZIZI: Ngibingelela uNgqongqoshe nozakwethu. Ngiyathokoza Sihlalo ohloniphekile ngethuba onginika lona. Sekuyoze kulamule iwashi namhlanje ngikhuluma – angiyukuqeda namhlanje. Lapha sixoxa ngesichibiyelo soMthethosisekelo. Khona empeleni akusho ukuthi nguMthethosivivinywa omusha

• yibuya leli. Buka ngoba ngonyaka ka-2003, lo Mthethosivivinywa wavunywa kuyo le Ndlu. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

[Mr M A MZIZI: I greet the Minister and colleagues. Thank you very much, hon Chairperson, for this opportunity. Today I am going to talk until we close; I will not finish today. We are talking about amending the Constitution here. In reality it is not a new Bill, but we are revisiting it. In 2003 this Bill was passed in this very same House.]

Chairperson, the reason why we have this Bill before us is to do what should have been done when this Bill was passed during 2003. This Bill seeks to give effect to the discussions of the Cabinet of 2003. This is to amend section 6(1)(c) of the Act.

On 21 June 2005, the Minister of Defence gave an instruction that the Secretary for Defence should be removed from the board of directors. This goes also for the Chief of the SANDF. This is done in order to avoid a conflict of interests.

The IFP agrees and supports that section 6(1)(c) of the Act be deleted in its entirety. “Sengehlela ngezansi.” [Ihlombe.] [I will stop here. [Applause.]]

Mr S SHICEKA: Chairperson, the House would agree with me that the Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP has undergone vigorous and serious lessons on pronunciation, particularly of my name.

All protocol observed. South Africa is a country, which has a strategic objective of building a peaceful South Africa, a better Africa and a better world. Armscor is a procurement arm of government that buys weapons to defend and protect the borders of our country.

Armscor has developed serious capabilities and possibilities of assisting the country in ensuring that our economy grows, and that this growth is able to contribute to job creation, which has been elusive for some time.

This instrument of Armscor must be seen by us as South Africans, and also by the world, as beyond reproach. Hence, the glorious movement supports what has been raised by the department in ensuring that those who conduct requisition should not be the same as the one who procures.

The division of responsibilities and sharing of labour to avoid potential conflict of interests is very important in corporative governance. It ensures that our country, particularly our parastatal sector, is an instrument that is used to ensure that clean governance is observed.

On that note, the ANC, this glorious movement, is behind the Bill and supports it.

The MINISTER OF DEFENCE: Madam Deputy Chairperson, I rise, really, first of all, to express ministerial and departmental gratitude for the support that, finally, we have enjoyed, especially today in the House with regard to this amendment, which we tabled earlier on; and it appears that it had not been properly managed.

Secondly, I would like to remind the members that we have heard over the past two years, particularly as the strategic defence package was being debated, that there is a general attitude that defence industries, generally, are corrupt.

South Africa is determined to make sure that even if that might be said with regard to defence industries and acquisitions elsewhere, that should not be the position with regard to South Africa’s defence industry and acquisition, generally. That is why we are undertaking steps of this nature.

The last point I would like to make in this regard is that we are continuing with the transformation not only of Armscor - we are intensely carrying out a comprehensive restructuring of our defence industries, public and private, to make sure that whatever elements remain that might expose our government, our defence industry and so on to queries of this nature are completely eliminated.

I therefore, perhaps, can say to the House that early next year we will approach this House with further amendments to this Act and then introduce other Acts that will enact new formations or structures of the defence industry, which will make it absolutely impossible to have the kinds of dangers that I have already alluded to. Once more, thank you very much, Deputy Chairperson, and thank you to the members of the House. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P Hollander): The Minister has requested that he be excused from the House because he has another appointment. Minister, we are going to release you.

               DEFENCE SPECIAL ACCOUNT AMENDMENT BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Deputy Chairperson, let me take this opportunity to thank the department for the manner in which they briefed the committee. The Bill we are putting before the House seeks to amend 13 pieces of legislation. Most of these amendments are technical in nature. I want to give a few examples of those changes that we are bringing forward.

The Bill makes provision for situations where, for example, you have a magistrate who no longer sits on the Bench while he had apartheid cases. That magistrate can come and sit again on the Bench as if he has never resigned. What is good about it is that he is not going to charge any exorbitant amounts while completing those cases.

Again, it makes it possible for the Chief Master to administer property and even estates. It gives powers, again, to the Chief Master to have free control over other Masters. As members can hear, there are no fundamental changes to this Bill; it is only aimed at bringing the legal provisions in line with the present legislation in Parliament.

But one amendment that made the committee really exercise their minds is the clause that enables attorneys not to serve the mandatory period, if approved by the relevant counsel. That attorneys, for example, can be exempted from completing a legal practice management course and such attorneys, even if they didn’t complete those courses, will be entitled to appear in any court throughout the country. This Bill again deals . . . [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P Hollander): Hon member, just tell us which consideration are you dealing with? We are on the consideration of the Defence Special Account Amendment Bill.

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Deputy Chairperson, what we are busy with now in terms of the speakers’ list before us is the other Bill, other than this one.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P Hollander): The Defence Special Account Amendment Bill.

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Deputy Chairperson, in that one there is no debate, it is only a statement.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P Hollander): We want the statement, please.

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: There is a member who will deal with that, it’s not me. Unless if there is a mistake somewhere . . . [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P Hollander): Sorry to stop you, hon member, but your name is indicated as the speaker for the Defence Special Account Amendment Bill.

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Deputy Chairperson, in terms of our agreement the person who will do that is hon Nyanda, and that was communicated to the relevant office. It is only fair that I should nicely take my seat so that the powers that be can settle this thing.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P Hollander): Sorry for the confusion, but I think, you will have to take your seat.

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Thanks, Chairperson.

Ms F NYANDA: Chairperson, we agree to the Defence Special Account Amendment Bill. The problem is that we were told that we could not put the statement forward – that we were going to debate it, and it was at the eleventh hour last night when the chairperson was informed about that. Thank you.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Have you got a statement?

Ms F NYANDA: I don’t have a statement with me.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Hon Deputy Chairperson, as you requested the calling of the second Order of the Day, the Defence Special Account Amendment Bill was specifically called. I think we should take note of the report - that the committee has dealt thoroughly with that particular amending Bill and that we allow it to pass so that we may then allow the House to proceed in an orderly way to the third Order on the Order Paper.

The only request that will come now with the third Order on the Order Paper is that as the hon Kgoshi Mokoena was already on the floor, he be allowed to continue and round up his opening on that Bill - I consulted with the Minister and she conceded. The Minister will only speak at the end in response. I think that will bring all the proceedings back to order. Thank you.

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

                   JUDICIAL MATTERS AMENDMENT BILL




            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, in conclusion . . .[Laughter.]

Other than what we said earlier on, and what was said by my colleague, hon Nyanda - I want to link the two - when she was addressing the Defence Special Accounts Amendment Bill, while I am addressing this one, because the Defence Special Accounts Amendment Bill is only changing the terminology of the Bill. There is nothing that is changing, only terminology to be in line with this. For example, you still had the Department of State Expenditure, and we are changing it to say it is now the Treasury – how nice is that?

Now, on this one, for example, the committee considered what we call the discrimination of people when you are calling them by their titles. I want to deal with what used to be called sex or intersex, where, for example, you get this person who, when he or she grew up, the other organ in this person becomes active, and as they grow up that organ stops growing and other parts continue.

Now, before, when this person wanted to change her status, because the other part is now developing, it was so difficult for those people, and they were so discriminated against. In this Bill all those things are being removed, so that if a person feels that this organ is now the one that is more active, this person can change what it looks like and behave like people who have the same organ. This person shouldn’t be discriminated against.

This is removing all the doubts because “peleng” [in the past] in our language Sotho . . .

Ke gore motho wa ditho tše pedi, tša senna le tša sesadi, ge di gola kamoka ga di lekane, enngwe e tla sesefala enngwe ya taramologa ga nnyane. Bjale Molaokakanywa wo, o lokiša gore ge ke gola-gola ke bona gore ke nyaka go šomiša enngwe gore ke seke ka kgetholwa ka baka leo, nka fetola. (Translation of Sepedi paragraph follows.)

[. . . one said that if a person has two sets of sexual organs, male and female, they will not both develop equally well, one will be underdeveloped and the other will be more developed. Now, this Bill proposes that when the person grows up, he or she will decide which one to use so that he or she is not discriminated against.]

Chairperson, again, in this committee they decided that they were not going to beat around the bush on this one; they will support it as well, because it is legislation that is progressive, very progressive.

Because I am left with eight minutes I will continue. Let me now allow my colleagues to come in and deal with other clauses. But, as a committee, we are satisfied and happy that the kind of changes we are bringing to this Bill are in line with this new democracy.

On that note, Chairperson, let me thank you for your understanding. Let me take my seat and enjoy listening. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr N J MACK: Chairperson, hon Minister, members, comrades and friends, I need to speak, in this debate, a little bit on debt collectors.

En ek wil ook aan die begin ’n bietjie Afrikaans praat, want ek wil vir u ’n prentjie skets van skuldinvordering; ’n prentjie wat ek en baie van die mense wat in dié land arm groot geword het, ervaar. Miskien vandag nog.

Wanneer ’n skuldinvorderaar kom, en ons ken al die mense, dan is dit maar ’n swaar tyd by die huis, want jy moet nou van daardie geld wat jy vir kos gebruik, afknyp om skuld te betaal. Nou word daar gevra, maar hoekom maak jy skuld? En ons weet dat as jy arm is, het jy geen ander uitweg om aan iets te kom nie. En nie net dié wat arm is nie; dié wat ’n bietjie geld het, moet ook maar skuld maak en goed op skuld koop.

Wat baie in my geheue sit en wat somtyds ’n bietjie grappig is, is wat gebeur wanneer die man wat die geld invorder by die deur aanklop, en dan is die ouers, die ma of die pa, maar geneig om te sê: “Gaan sê vir daardie man ek is nie by die huis nie.” En dan kom die kind gewoonlik by die deur, en dan sê hy: “Ma sê, en pa sê, hulle is nie by die huis nie.”

En dít skep net vir u ’n idee van skuldinvorderaars en wat dit eintlik aan ons mense doen. Somtyds, wanneer goedere by die huis gehaal moet word, “repossessed” word, dan is dit ’n sware ervaring ná jy al baie betaal het aan die goed wat moet teruggegee word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[And I would also at the outset like to speak some Afrikaans, because I want to sketch you a picture of debt collection; a picture that many of the people in this country and I, who grew up poor, see. Perhaps they still do today.

When a debt collector arrives, and we already know these people, then it is a difficult time at home because one has to take the money that one would use for food and use it to pay the debt. Now it is asked, why do you incur debt? And we know that when one is poor, there is no other way to acquire something. And not only those who are poor, but also those who have a little money have little alternative but to incur debt and buy goods on credit.

What I still remember, and which is at times somewhat funny, is what happens when the man who collects the debt knocks on the door, and the mother or father tends to say: “Tell that man I am not at home.” And then the child goes to the door and says: “Mom says, and Dad says, they are not at home.”

And this gives you an idea of debt collectors and what they actually do to our people. Sometimes, when the goods have to be collected at the house, to be repossessed, it is a difficult experience after one has already paid a lot for the things that have to be returned.]

It is common knowledge that there are many debt collectors who are not only unregistered but who also refuse to register with the Council for Debt Collectors. Justifying their refusal, these debt collectors argue that they only provide administrative functions for an attorney, who then deals with the processing of legal documentation. The situation has left neither the debt collector, nor the attorney registered in terms of the Debt Collectors Act of 1998.

In the same vein, that situation has also left the council with no control over activities of such a person who performs exactly the same function as the agent or employee of a debt collector registered in terms of the Debt Collectors Act. Precisely for this reason, the ANC welcomes and supports the legislative intervention contained in this Bill, which intervention purports that there is a legislative gap and purports to address this legislative gap.

Surely there are many citizens of our country who have been victims of this gap, which exists in the legislation governing debt collection in this country. But, once this Bill is passed into an Act of Parliament, and the Act becomes effective, never and never again shall citizens of our country be subjected to such victimisation.

Hon members, you would remember that currently the register of Debt Collectors contains both the names of active debt collectors and those whose application have been either withdrawn or disapproved, for which reason the Bill does not only enjoin the debtor’s council to keep two separate registers, one containing active debt collectors and the other containing inactive debt collectors, but it also requires both registers to be published in the Government Gazette.

While the debtors’ council complains of the heavy expenses that would be incurred in publishing such registers, registers must be accessible to ordinary persons in the street. Therefore, to strike a balance, registers should be made available for public inspection at a prescribed place, and the debtors’ council would have to publish a notice in the Gazette and in a national newspaper setting out the prescribed places where the register is available for public inspection.

The Debt Collectors Act of 1998, at present, only makes provision for involuntary withdrawal of registration of a person, which means that this Act does not provide for instances where a debt collector no longer wishes to continue practising as a debt collector. In other words, there’s no mechanism in this Act for such a person to request cancellation of his or her name from the register. However, the Bill we are debating today will address this legislative problem.

Lastly, this Bill also responds to the numerous requests received from debt collectors and auditors alike for the amendment of the provision so as to bring them more in line with trust accounts of attorneys, estate agents and sheriffs. This means that debt collectors would also be able to pay interest earned in their trust accounts to a fidelity fund. The ANC supports this Bill, Chairperson. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr D A WORTH: Deputy Chairperson, hon Minister, and personnel from the Department of Justice that are here this afternoon, hon members and colleagues. Someone on our committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs stated that this Bill should have been called the judicial matters consolidation bill and not the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill.

In a way this is correct insofar as this Bill attempts to encompass in a single Bill a variety of amendments to various laws administered by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. I do not intend, however, to discuss all the amendments contained in the Bill, but I do want to highlight just a few.

Clause 1 seeks to amend the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944 in order to address a situation where a magistrate vacates the office of magistrate but still has partly heard cases to be finalised and deals specifically with instances where a magistrate is appointed as a judge.

Clauses 2 and 3 ensure that the Chief Master has effective control over all the Masters’ offices and the Minister has control over the Chief Master. Clause 8 inserts a new section in the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act of 1996, which allows the head of a Special Investigating Unit to delegate certain of his or her powers and functions to another member of the unit to facilitate the smooth functioning of such units.

Clause 10 of this Bill seeks to amend the definition of a “debt collector” as some debt collectors refuse to register with the Council for Debt Collectors and argue that they merely provide administrative functions for an attorney. In this manner, neither the attorney nor the debt collector is registered in terms of the Debt Collectors Act of 1998. Clause 12 of the Bill proposes that the council must keep a register of the names and particulars of every debt collector whose application for registration has been approved or whose registration has been withdrawn or disapproved. The council will also be compelled to publish the register of debt collectors in the Government Gazette annually; and the register must be updated every second month, and must be made available for inspection by the public at prescribed places and times.

Clause 14 of the Bill amends section 20 of the Debt Collectors Act in that, in terms of this section, every debt collector must open and maintain a separate trust account at a bank and must deposit all monies received by him or her on behalf of any person upon receipt thereof.

The money so deposited, together with interest, must be paid within a reasonable time to the person on whose behalf the money was received or held. This legislation brings debt collectors in line with the trust- account provisions of attorneys, estate agents and sheriffs, and makes provision for these professionals to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in respect of that trust account.

Clause 17 seeks to amend section 10 of the Implementation of the Rome Statute of International Criminal Act, 2002 and sets out procedures to be followed after the arrest of a person in South Africa who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for a crime contemplated in the Act. Such a person must be brought before a magistrate, who must hold an inquiry to establish whether the warrant of arrest applies to the arrested person, whether such person has been arrested in accordance with the procedures laid down by the domestic law and whether the rights of the person as contemplated in Chapter 2 of the Constitution have been respected before such person be surrendered to the International Criminal Court for prosecution.

These are just a few of the outlines of the amendments contained in the Bill and I have not gone into great details. However, the DA fully supports this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mnu M A MZIZI: Sihlalo ohloniphekile angibonge futhi ukuthi ngibuye ngithole leli thuba. Ngibingelela uNgqongqoshe nozwakwethu futhi okwesibili. Sasinxuse ukuthi kube oyedwa nje wethu okhulumayo kule ngxoxo esiphezu kwayo. Sasesaba ukuthi sizokhulumisa okwegramafomu lapho umuntu azosukuma aphinde akhulume lokho osekushiwo omunye. Ofakazi ababili noma abathathu bakhuluma iqiniso. Mina sengingowesihlanu-ke. Angazi noma nami ngisakhuluma lelo qiniso na. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)

[Mr M A MZIZI: Hon Chairperson, thank you for this opportunity. May I once again greet the hon Minister and my colleagues. We had requested that only one member should give a speech in this debate. We were afraid of sounding like a gramophone, where one would repeat what has been said already. The two or three witnesses were telling the truth. I am the fifth one. I don’t know whether am I telling that truth.]

Chairperson, this Bill seeks to amend the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944, njengoba ozakwethu sebeshilo sengiphinda kona lokho. [ . . . as my colleagues have said, and I am just repeating that.] The amendments deal with a number of Acts. In the Magistrates’ Courts Act it deals with the partly heard cases by the magistrate - njengoba uzakwethu ebeseshilo futhi. [ . . . as my colleague has said.]

In the Administration of Estate Act of 1965, it amends the definition of “Master” and it goes on to further say that the Chief Master will fall under the supervision of the Minister. “Njengoba ubona nje – akuphikiswana.” [As you can see – it’s not debatable.]

The amendment also deals with the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977. This amendment also deals with the Attorney Act of 1979; and goes on to also deal with the Maintenance Act of 1998 and the Debt Collectors Act of 1998 – “Ukuphinda into eyodwa nje lokhu. Siyavumelana sonke” - [It is just a repetition, we all agree.] Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 2006; Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000, which include the intersex person within the definition of “sex”. “Ubesechazile-ke uKgoshi Mokoena lapho ebechaza khona ngolimi lukamama.” [Kgoshi Mokoena has already explained in my language.] I can go on an on, yet the crux of the matter is that to bring these pieces of legislation in line with the practical issues that have arisen in practice, it is important to do it now to avoid any reason that could cause a legal uncertainty. The IFP supports the Bill. “Imihlathi eyazanayo ayihlangane.” [People with the same ideas should work together.]

Mr S SHICEKA: Deputy Chair, I think under the leadership of Kgoshi Mokoena, there must be an agreement - the committee is working so well that you hardly get any dissenting view and a voice that comes with discord. That is a demonstration of good leadership. Therefore that is what I am saying as part of the detachment – the Mokoena detachment - that is doing so well with him leading this team.

With all protocol observed and the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry in front of me here, we all know that there shall be peace, security and friendship. That is the strategic objective and the direction that South Africa is taking. The building blocks are laid in pursuance of this objective of creating a caring society.

Amongst other things, this framework Bill that we are speaking about is trying to deal with the issue of the Maintenance Act, to ensure that the Maintenance Act is amended, strengthened and improved, particularly the investigators. These investigators must be able to trace persons who are legally liable to maintain other persons. They must be able to serve or execute processes of the maintenance court. They must be able to serve, subpoena, summon or execute the warrant of arrest in respect of criminal proceedings instituted for the failure to comply with the maintenance order.

South Africa as a country that is committed to giving high priority to the rights of children, to their survival, protection and their development. That is demonstrated by the fact that South Africa is a signatory to the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children and Plan of Action agreed upon in New York on 30 September 1990.

South Africa has also on 16 June 1995 accented to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, also signed in New York on 20 November 1989. Article 27 of the said convention specifically requires that the state recognise the right of every child to a standard of living, which is adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

Now, as parents, all these rights are inherent to our children. The question that has to be asked then is: are we playing our role as a society to ensure that these rights that we all subscribe to are obtained? Definitely, some people out there – I will not say here in this House - are not playing their role. That is why the Minister is required to ensure that in this amendment . . .

. . . abaphenyi kuzodingeka ukuthi benze umsebenzi wabo wokuzingela abazali abangakhokhi izimfanelo zezingane. Lokho kwenziwa ukuthi abanye babazali abalibambi iqhaza okudingeka balibambe ukuxhasa ukuthi izingane zikwazi ukukhula ngendlela efanele. Yikho-ke namhlanje kunalesi sichibiyelo salo Mthetho. Ngithi-ke mina bonke abantu abangalibambi iqhaza lokwenza umsebenzi wabo mabakwenze lokho ngoba umthetho usezithendeni zabo futhi uzobavalela. Abaphenyi banikezwa amandla manje okuthi bakwazi ukukulanda noma ngane ukuphi. Sithi-ke ungabaleka kodwa ngeke ucashe ngoba ihlathi lokucasha alikho lapho ungeke utholakale khona.

Okunye-ke esibhekana nakho lapha kulesi sichibiyelo salo Mthetho udaba oluphathelene nobugebengu lapho kunikwezwa khona amandla uMqondisi wezokuShushiswa koMphakathi. Siyazi-ke kuleli zwe ukuthi savuma uMthetho wokuthi makube khona ukushushiswa komphakathi lapho khona kufanele kudidiyelwe abashushisi namaphoyisa. Lokhu kwenzelwa ukuthi amacala ababhekene nawo asheshe ukungena enkantolo kanye nokukhishwa kwezigwebo ngoba zihlangana endaweni eyodwa lezi zinto – kuyisixaxambiji.

Ngalawo magama-ke engifuna ukukusho ukuthi kuleli zwe lakithi, likaMthaniya, kwaqhamuka indaba yokuthi ngo-1995 seza nomkhombandlela obizwa phecelezi ngokuthi “National Crime Prevention Strategy”. Konke-ke okwenzekayo okubhekene nokulwa nobudlova nobugebengu kuleli zwe lakithi kusuka lapho. Yinsika leyo ebhekene nezokuphepha kuleli zwe lakithi. Ngalowo magama-ke ngizama ukuchaza ukuthi sithi-ke manje uMqondisi wezokuShushiswa koMphakathi makakwazi ukwehlisa amandla awanikeze abangaphansi kwakhe ukuze bakwazi ukuqhuba umsebenzi wokulwa nobugebengu ezweni lakithi.

Sizama-ke ukuqinisa amaxhama namagalelo ethu ukuze silwe nobugebengu kuleli zwe lakithi. Ngalawo magama-ke sithi-ke thina siyinhlangano edla ezinye izinhlangano nenamandla kuleli zwe lakithi sihamba nawo lo Mthetho siyawuxhasa. Sithi Ngqongqoshe sinawe kulo Mthetho kodwa-ke esikuphawulile esithe kufanele uhambe uyokucabanga futhi uyokuphenya emnyangweni wakho udaba lokuthi abameli laba kungani bona bengambandakanywa ohlangothini lwabantu abafuna izikweletu kwabanye abantu. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[ . . . investigators must do their work and hunt down those parents who neglect their children. This is happening because certain parents do not play the role they should be playing to ensure that their children grow up under normal, healthy circumstances. It is against this background that we are making this amendment to this legislation today. I am therefore saying that all those who do not do what is required of them do so at their peril, because the law is behind them and they will be imprisoned. Investigators are now empowered to arrest you wherever you are. We therefore say you can run, but you cannot hide, because there is no impenetrable bush. In amending this legislation, we are also faced with a situation where the Director of Public Prosecutions has been given absolute powers. We all know that we agreed that the police and the prosecution authority should work together. This was done with the intention of delivering justice speedily by pulling together.

With these words what I want to say is that in 1995 we initiated the establishment of the National Crime Prevention Strategy in our country. The aim of this body is to fight crime and criminality in our country. This body is a pillar of safety in our country. With these words I am trying to explain that it is high time that the Director of Public Prosecutions delegates his powers to those under him so that they can continue fighting crime in our country.

We are trying to liaise with relevant structures and use our expertise to fight crime in our country. With those words, as the majority party, and the most powerful party in this country, we fully support this legislation.

To the Minister, we say we are with you in supporting this legislation, but what we would like you to investigate is why the attorneys are not included in the debt collecting business.]

Why are the attorneys not included in the debt collectors? We are saying that your department has to go and investigate that and you must be able to give a report in due course to the committee in that respect. Thank you very much.

The MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Deputy Chairperson, I actually think that it was proper that the chairperson of the select committee, Rre Kgoshi Mokoena, should do so, and I will tell you why.

There has been deliberation for years around a number of reforms and amendments, and they relate largely to the Bill that has been considered today. I just want to say, as an illustration, they have referred to section 1 of the Bill; of importance and related directly to reform in that regard is the principle that we would want to establish a single judiciary in the country. That element is also covered in this amendment.

I am also very grateful, in fact, that there is consensus around these amendments. I thank the select committee very much for that. I just want to say, for example, that the amendment that seeks to establish the Chief Master’s office is so important. It is critical for the transformation, complete reform and restructuring of that institution.

We need to modernise it. We need to make it more efficient. Now that we will have a Chief Master, we will then be able to come out with solid policy regarding the whole rescue and/or rescue and liquidation issues. Those are really the key. People have counter-posed them; they ought not to be. I am certain that, by next year, we will be talking policy.

We also want to heighten training of our personnel across the board. There are flaws at the Master’s office, and it is time that we jack up and improve skills. This is going to be a very helpful amendment.

I just want to say that one of our primary objectives as this government and as this Department of Justice is to promote access to justice, to make that a reality, to bring justice closer to our people and, by and large, whether you are talking about maintenance, debt collection, all those aspects, or the question of equality, all those relate to bringing justice closer to our people, and therefore improving the quality of life of our people.

I must thank the department for the sterling work done. I must say that I am very lucky. I have inherited a portfolio where there is great interaction between Parliament and the department. In fact, I am informed that a number of the amendments where actually suggested by Parliament. Thank you very much.

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

         SOUTH AFRICAN ABATTOIR CORPORATION ACT REPEAL BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson and hon members, it is with good intentions that, with the Bill I am presenting before the House today, we are closing the final chapter on the SA Abattoir Corporation, known as Abakor.

The South African Abattoir Corporation Act of 1992 has to be repealed because Abakor does not exist any more. So, it does not make any sense to have this Act, which mainly provides for the incorporation of the SA Abattoir Corporation into a public company, if the corporation has to be liquidated.

Let me take this House back and explain why there was a need to form Abakor as a public company and why it has been liquidated. The South African Abattoir Corporation Act came into effect on 10 July 1992. The main purpose of the Act was to abolish the Abattoir Commission and provide for the incorporation of Abakor as a public company to be administered by the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the state.

Before the passing of the Act in 1992, the situation in the meat industry in the country was very fragmented. Anyone who wanted to build an abattoir in South Africa had to apply for permission to do so to the Abattoir Commission. Those abattoirs that did not meet the standards of the commission and did not get permission from it were bought by government and managed by the company, Abakor.

So, on one hand there were those abattoirs, deemed to be of good standard, that got permission from the Abattoir Commission, and those that were of lower standards under Abakor. Abakor, then, was a company under private management and in which government owned all the shares.

Also at this time, under the Meat Scheme promulgated under the Market Act, farmers could only market meat in 11 metropolitan areas around the Abakor abattoirs by applying for a permit at an agent of one of these abattoirs. With the new dispensation in the early 1990s the Abattoir Industry Act was repealed, the Abattoir Commission was disbanded and Abakor was incorporated into a public company.

The other changes were that the repeal of the Meat Scheme during this period meant that there were no more controlled areas and farmers no longer needed a permit to market their livestock in the metropolitan areas.

The effect of these changes in the 1990s in the meat market did not all bring positive results. Due to the new changes that did not force farmers to market meat around Abakor abattoirs, most farmers opted not to use Abakor abattoirs. They opted either to build their abattoirs or slaughter their stock at abattoirs closest to them and transport meat to the metropolitan areas.

This meant that the Abakor abattoirs, built at a great cost to the taxpayer of South Africa, became run down because the money they were making was too little to cover their operational costs and they were not making any profit. As a result, Abakor was indebted to a number of creditors, which included the Meat Board, which later became the Meat Industry Trust.

Since Abakor could not pay its debt, it had to close down. As a result the liquidation process for Abakor started in 2000 and was finalised by 2004. With Abakor liquidated, the South African Abattoir Corporation Act of 1992 has become obsolete. Therefore the Act must be repealed because the purpose for which it was passed no longer exists.

As a committee we therefore move for the repeal of this Act. We can now all say that the last chapter on Abakor has been closed. I rest my case, Chair. Thank you very much.

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

                  CLOSE CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon members, I would like to welcome the hon Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry and to say that, as the NCOP, we are pleased that you are here today. We congratulate you on your appointment as the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Thank you, Chair. Hon members, I hope the NCOP will also be nice to me, as I will be delivering my maiden speech here. Yesterday, the National Assembly was very nice and all parties agreed with the Patents Amendment Bill. I think that today it will be the same.

I am honoured and thrilled to table the Close Corporations Amendment Bill in the NCOP. The Close Corporations Act of 1984 facilitates the formation and maintenance of a close corporation – a business vehicle used primarily by small businesses in South Africa. It is estimated that there are approximately 880 000 registered close corporations in South Africa, although only an estimated half of those are active businesses. As such, I believe that this Act will be of great interest to the members of Parliament.

While this amending Bill represents significant changes to the current law, it does not entail a holistic review of the Close Corporations Act. This will form part of the corporate law reform process that was initiated by the Department of Trade and Industry, DTI, in 2002.

It is not envisaged that the Close Corporations Act will be directly affected by the law reform, in that it will not be repealed. However, a further review of the current legislation will be necessary to ensure that it is aligned with the principles expressed in the corporate law reform policy.

This amending Bill deals with the three main issues, namely the transfer of personal liability of members back to the close corporation after its reregistration; the provision of corporations to act as accounting officers; and the provision of a natural and juristic person in the capacity of a trustee to be entitled to membership of a corporation.

Allow me to explain each of these amendments in a bit more detail. Firstly, I will refer to the issue of the transfer of personal liability to close corporation after reregistration. The Close Corporations Act provides that the liabilities of a close corporation are shared jointly and severally by its members after deregistration.

However, recent case law has established that even if the close corporation is reregistered, any business debt remains the personal liability of the members. It is our view that the court should be empowered to make a case- by-case judgment about whether personal liability should revert to the corporation and whether an individual member should be compensated by the corporation if he settled the liabilities.

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

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

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, led by the able Nosipho Ntwanambi, for the assistance in helping us to steer the legislation to this point and for their valuable contributions. I should also pay special thanks to the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law, members of the public and other stakeholders for their inputs into these amendments, and for their commitment to ensuring that our corporate law is appropriate, consistent and up to date. I commend this Bill to the House. I thank you. [Applause.]

Ms N D NTWANAMBI: Chairperson, hon Deputy Minister, hon members, the Deputy Minister has said almost everything we had drafted, and let me add just a few things.

The amendment we had to effect empowers the court to make an appropriate order in respect of a corporation and members of such a corporation, after the restoration by the registrar of the registration of that corporation; to adjust requirements for membership of a corporation and to allow for a corporation to appoint another one as an accounting officer; and to provide for matters connected herewith.

It also substituted – because I don’t have to repeat everything the Deputy Minister has said – and inserted words in order to gender-sensitise the Bill. As the Deputy Minister has said, this is an Act of 1984, which then assumed that only men could be involved and be directors of companies. This has drastically changed hence the insertion of new words like “hers”, “her” and “she”, as well as acknowledging that men and women can be partners in business.

As the committee we sang and marched with one voice in agreeing to the Bill. Like the Deputy Minister has said, again, I also propose that the House adopts the amendments. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

       CONSIDERATION OF FIRST REPORT OF JOINT RULES COMMITTEE

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P Hollander): Hon Chairperson, hon members will recall that the meeting of the Joint Rules Committee on 3 June 2005 considered the progress report of the Joint Sub-committee on Review of Joint Rules.

Three interim reports dealing with the following were discussed: the interim report concerning Rules to give effect to the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and the Provincial Legislators Act; the interim report concerning Rules to give effect to section 18(1) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act of 2003; the report on the draft leave policy for members of Parliament - this document was to be referred to political parties for further consideration as the draft leave policy had not yet been adopted.

In respect of the two reports, the Joint Rules Committee agreed to the sub- committee’s proposals relating to, firstly, the integration of the disciplinary committee in the NA and the committee required to be established in terms of section 12 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act; the payment of expenses of witnesses; the issuing of a warning to witnesses prior to them giving evidence and the sub-committee’s draft rules to give effect to section 18(1) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, providing for determination of whether a Bill pertains to customary law or customs of traditional communities in the legislative process, and for a referral of a Bill subject to section 18(1) of the National House of Traditional Leaders Act by the Secretary to Parliament.

The Joint Rules Committee meeting on 24 August 2005 decided that concerning the absence of a report from the Joint Rules Committee to the House on Rule amendments that were agreed to by the committee on 3 June 2005, it was noted that the report would be finalised and presented to the presiding officers before the end of the week, and presiding officers were requested to look at processes to expedite bringing the Rule amendments to the House.

The Report dealing with Rule amendments was received by the presiding officers and published in the ATC of 31 August 2005. The Report deals with the following amendments: Firstly, the insertion in Joint Rule 1(1) of the following definition – that the Act referred to in this Rule means the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act of 2004.

Secondly, in Joint Rule 32 dealing with the general powers of joint committees, the insertion of Joint Rule 32(3) and (4), dealing with payment to witnesses summonsed by a joint committee of a reasonable sum for travelling and attendance time, for transport expenses actually incurred, and the need to inform a witness of his or her rights prior to giving evidence.

In Joint Rule 160, the insertion of new Joint Rule 160(5A) after Joint Rule 160(5) to give effect to section 18(1) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act of 2003, providing for the joint tagging mechanism, to also make a finding whether a Bill pertains to customary law or customs of traditional communities in accordance with section 18(1) of the Act.

In Joint Rule 163 on reclassification of Bills, the insertion of the Joint Rule 163(3) to provide for the change in the classification of a Bill by the JTM in respect of whether the Bill pertains to customary law or customs of traditional communities in accordance with section 18(1) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act.

In Joint Rule 167, the insertion of Joint Rule 167(3)(i) stating that the JTM may report to the House in which the Bill was introduced if the Bill was classified as being subject to section 18(1) of the Traditional Leadership of Governance Framework Act of 2003, only after 30 days have passed since the referral to the National House of Traditional Leaders, in terms of Assembly Rule 332 and Council Rule 255.

And lastly, in Joint Rule 216, the insertion of the new Joint Rule 216(7) that the Rule dealing with fast-tracking of Bills does not apply to a Bill classified as being subject to section 18(1) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act of 2003, which is still before the House where it was introduced for a period of 30 days since the referral to the National House of Traditional Leaders.

In terms of Assembly Rule 332 and Council Rule 255, I would like the House to consider and adopt the committee’s recommendations. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I shall now put the question and the question is that the Report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Mr M O ROBERTSON: Supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Steun. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Mr E M SOGONI: Siyavuma. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal iyavumela. [KwaZulu-Natal agrees.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Re a dumela. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms F NYANDA: Mpumalanga supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mr M A SULLIMAN: Northern Cape supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: North West, siyavuma. [North West, we agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Wes-Kaap steun. [Western Cape supports.]

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

        CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL
           SERVICES - OVERSIGHT VISIT TO GAUTENG PROVINCE

Hs N F MAZIBUKO: Thank you, Chairperson of Committees. The select committee under the Chairperson, Joyce Masilo, undertook an oversight visit to the smart province Gauteng on the 7th to 9th February 2005.

The purpose of the visit was to conduct an oversight role over, firstly, the management and quality of services rendered in respect of Health, Social Development and Home Affairs. Secondly, it was also to inspect various health facilities, social facilities and home-affairs facilities in order to determine the state of the physical infrastructure and the equipment. Lastly, it was to identify progress made and challenges that are being experienced by all the stakeholders who use our services.

The committee met with the MEC for Social Services, MEC Bob Mabaso, the MEC for Health, Gwen Ramogopa, and her officials and the HOD of Home Affairs, including the officials. The committee also visited Natalspruit Hospital, which is situated on a dolomitic area; Khaya Day Care Centre, which is a crèche and also a drop-in centre providing food and clothing, and an aftercare centre for children attending school. It also visited the Home Affairs Regional Office in Mabopane where we discovered that the office is actually situated on the first floor. Although it has got a lift, on some days the lift is nonfunctional and the offices are not accessible to people with disabilities.

The committee also visited the Garankuwa offices, where the building, we discovered, left much to be desired. The doors did not have locks, the roofs were leaking and the floor tiles were protruding. “Abezingakusika nezinyawo uma ngabe uhamba phezu kwawo.” [They would cut off your foot if you walked across them.] The toilets that existed were only for the staff and the public actually did not have . . .

“. . . izindlu zangasese. Uma ngabe mhlawumbe abesilisa kufanele bayoshobinga bona basithela nje emva kwendlu. Abesifazane bona basenkingeni ngoba ngeke bakwazi ukuzisiza. [ . . . toilets. If the males want to go and urinate, they just go behind the house. The females are in trouble because they cannot help themselves.]

We also visited the Sebokeng Hospital, where we discovered that the machines and the equipments are not in a good working condition, and also other problems associated with hospitals, which includes a shortage of nurses and so on. The Impilisweni Clinic, which provides a comprehensive health-care service, operates between Monday and Friday from 7am to 4pm.

The Kopanong Community Health Centre is a residence for children that have been infected and affected. It is also a centre that was build through a relationship and partnership between government and the private sector. The presentation we received from the MEC Bob Mabaso and his officials indicated that the biggest challenge that is faced by the department relates to the need to move away from the welfare approach to a developmental approach.

It is challenging because, unlike in the past, the new developmental approach to service delivery requires co-operation and partnership between all spheres of government. There are issues of food security and awaiting- trial children are housed in facilities that are not suitable. And, lastly, what we hear from the MEC was that the department’s strategic priorities are in line with the vision of 2014 objectives of the Gauteng province.

The MEC for Health, Gwen Ramogopa, also indicated six strategic priorities, which seek to promote health prevent and manage illnesses; and secondly, the effective implementation of the Comprehensive HIV and Aids Strategy; strengthening the district health system and providing a caring, responsive and quality service at all levels; implementing the people’s contract through the effective leadership and governance; Gauteng becoming a leader in human resource development and management; and lastly, operating a smarter investment in health technology, communication and information systems.

With the strategic priorities, no wonder the people of South Africa are actually flocking to Gauteng, thinking that health-care services there are better, only to find that they are increasing our population and impregnating our system.

The presentation from Home Affairs involved their turnaround strategy and intervention targeted at people and infrastructure technology. Under the new Ministers of the ANC, they have identified ten critical interventions: the immigration, civic services, service delivery, people, leadership and management infrastructure, finance and procurement, information system, corruption and Government Printing Works.

So, hopefully, as they implement the turnaround strategy, we have also noticed that even now, when children are born at hospitals, they immediately get their certificates. Those of you who don’t have passports can go and apply now; it only takes two days for you to actually get a passport, unlike in the olden days, when you had to wait for quite a long time.

In conclusion, the full report with recommendation has been put in the ATC and it contains information that is very relevant to the various departments. Various departments have already addressed some of the issues. We hereby move for the adoption of the report from the select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon member. Before we proceed, I just want thank the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry for being with us and I am told that she is going to leave now. And I hope the Deputy Minister has enjoyed being with us and she will probably be coming back, now and again, to this House.

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: I shall now put the question and the question is that the Report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Steun. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Support.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal iyavuma. [KwaZulu-Natal supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Re a dumela. [We support.]

CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms F NYANDA: Mpumalanga supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mr M A SULLIMAN: Siyavuma. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Ons steun. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Western Cape supports.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICES - OVERSIGHT VISIT TO NORTH WEST PROVINCE

Ms J M MASILO: Hon Chairperson, colleagues, all protocol observed, firstly, I would like to apologise to the House for the late tabling of this report, owing to reasons beyond our control, including the fact that from June to August 2005 the chairperson was off sick, and we had several pieces of legislation before us.

From 7 to 9 February 2005 the select committee undertook a study tour to the North West province. The purpose of the study tour by the select committee was to exercise its oversight function as mandated by the Constitution; to conduct oversight over the departments’ management and quality of services rendered in respect of Health, Social Development and Home Affairs; to inspect various Health, Social Development and Home Affairs facilities in order to determine the state of physical infrastructure and equipment; to identify progress made, as well as challenges experienced by the departments and our stakeholders.

The committee’s visits included the following meetings and site visits: a meeting with the Department of Health at Bojanala District Municipality; a meeting with the Department of Social Development; a visit to Rustenburg Provincial Hospital and George Stegman hospital in Moses Kotane municipality and Odi hospital in Mabopane; a visit to health and social service delivery points in the Moses Kotane municipality; a visit to various community projects, including the Dolly Rathebe old-age home; a visit to Itireleng institution for the blind; a visit to Home Affairs regional offices.

This study tour revealed that some of the districts are lagging behind in their target to provide primary-health-care programmes owing to staff shortages. There is also a lack of equipment and appropriate buildings owing to the fact that the budget allocated to the province was inadequate. In addition, the fact that many patients are migrant labourers results in the health-care intervention not being followed through by patients. However, health-care services are improving steadily in some hospitals.

With regard to the TB cure rate, the province is, in some respects, falling short of the national norm of 85%, with the worst-hit areas being those centred around the mines.

The province has established a significant number of voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) sites and is making good progress with regard to the establishment of sites for the roll-out of antiretrovirals, the ARV treatment plan. However, it was noted that staff needed to be trained in the assessment of patients for compliance.

In relation to termination of pregnancy (Top), the committee noted that to a large extent the district hospital performed very well. There have been minor problems with regard to the availability of drugs required for the procedure. It was further noted that six mental-health co-ordinators have been trained in the implementation of the new mental-health-care programme.

A number of other challenges were identified, among them the issue of ensuring that there is adequate staff to deliver health-care services. It is difficult to attract medical personnel to the rural areas, as there is generally a high turnover of staff at the primary, district and provincial hospital levels.

While there is some co-operation with civil society organisations, the relationship is difficult because in some cases organisations are cross- subsidised between departments, and in other cases there is no money to train non-governmental organisations.

The state of health facilities was also highlighted, with the department and hospital noting that there is not enough in the budget to properly maintain facilities. At the mortuary at Odi Hospital, for example, there are five refrigerators with three shelves each, 15 in total, but none of them works.

The committee identified a number of issues to follow up with regard to health-care delivery in the province. The Department of Health has also responded to these issues.

Now I come to social development in the North West province. Regarding social services and community development, the department noted that there are large numbers of children orphaned by HIV and Aids.

In relation to children awaiting trial, the department said that the number of probation officers in the province was inadequate because there is only one secure centre in Bojanala region that serves as a place of safety. It accommodates 45 people. Children are often taken to police cells. For the next financial year the region submitted for approval plans to build two more secure centres.

A visit to service centres for the aged and for persons with disabilities indicated that there was a need for such centres and that they could play an important role in alleviating poverty. However, the funding of such centres remains a problem, because government does not fully fund the services offered by NGOs. With regard to food security, the biggest challenge is the fact that there are not sufficient food parcels to service everybody. Social Development is working together with other departments, eg. Education and Health. The Department of Agriculture assisted with poultry farming and bricklaying.

Regarding social assistance, the department indicated that various paypoint service managers have been appointed to assist with service delivery. Paypoints remain a challenge because often they require tents, chairs and other facilities. Pensioner committees also assist at these points.

I now come to Home Affairs district offices at Garankuwa, Mabopane, and Odi districts in North West. The departmental fraud prevention and risk management strategies include focus on outstanding identity documents, which are improving, even though they are understaffed.

The Mabopane office has two immigration officers. The area is big and they need a team of 20 immigration officers. On 8 August 2005 the number of outstanding, uncollected identity documents was 1 715. Their proposed staff establishment requires a staff of 41 officers, compared to the current 19, and they operate with volunteers.

Developments after the select committee visits and subsequent meeting with the director-general and senior management include the following: four new cars were bought, two refrigerators, six computers and printers, two fax machines, four cameras and water coolers; offices were painted with departmental corporate colours; an IT area manager was appointed; and, most importantly, there was a decentralisation of service to the regions.

I now come to recommendations. The committee is determined to undertake follow-up visits to the province in order to provide oversight and monitor progress made with regard to some of the challenges raised by stakeholders during the oversight visit.

The committee will also take up some of the issues raised with the relevant departments, and we will continue providing oversight on the departmental strategic plan to ensure that relevant issues are taken up, as well as spending patterns. We support the report. Thank you, Chair.

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question, and the question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?

HON MEMBERS: Yes!

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order, per province. Delegation heads must indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour, against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Rea ithekga. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Is in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Agree.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Ri khou tendelana [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms F NYANDA: Mpumalanga supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mr M A SULLIMAN: Ke a rona. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Ke a rona. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All provinces have voted in favour of the report. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

               CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT BUDGET
                      COMMITTEE - STRATEGIC PLAN

Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Hon Chairperson and hon colleagues, it is indeed my pleasure to share with you, hon members assembled here, the strategic plan of the Joint Budget Committee.

As you will recall, this report is as a consequence of, firstly, a joint resolution that was taken by both Houses of Parliament to, firstly, establish the Joint Budget Committee and subsequently to set out some terms of reference according to which the Joint Budget Committee had to do its work.

The strategic plan is the result of a four-month-long process in the first half of this year and seeks to map a way forward for the duration of the current Parliament in the form of a rolling strategic plan.

In this plan we mapped out our vision, as follows:

To have an effective role in budget management as Parliament; to
facilitate improved spending outcomes in terms of, firstly, aligning
spending priorities with government policy and secondly, and foremost,
ensuring value for money for any kind of spending.

Some of the goals that the Joint Budget Committee has set itself in regard to the terms of reference are as follows:

To review and provide meaningful recommendations aimed at improving
spending effectiveness and efficiency to Parliament on the budget
allocations as outlined in the Appropriation Bill and the Medium-Term
Budget Policy Statement.

One of the issues is to review the actual expenditure reports on a monthly and quarterly basis for spending effectiveness and efficiency.

In that regard, we are trying to avoid a situation of surprises and shocks by the end of the year in that any erratic expenditure by any department will be detected in time and remedial action can be taken timeously.

Our last goal is to engage, co-ordinate and guide portfolio and select committees’ work on the Budget in order to streamline Parliament’s role of oversight regarding Budget issues.

May I hasten to add that we will not be coming to our sister select committees or portfolio committees as big brother, we will come as a sibling, a same-level committee, but with some kind of separate references as to how we should play our oversight role.

I am sure hon members who attended the weekend workshop on intergovernmental fiscal relations are aware of the benefits that we can derive from this joint deliberation and focus on our oversight.

In terms of our references for the Joint Budget Committee, as passed by both Houses of Parliament, it has specified the structure of the committee and mandated it to undertake specific tasks. Some of these tasks are to consider the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, with the exception of those sections dealing with the macroeconomic situation and revenue.

The said MTBPS will be with us in a few weeks’ time and the Joint Budget Committee will be engaged with that in a very serious manner.

Lastly, the Joint Budget Committee also has its goal to monitor the published actual revenue and expenditure per department to ascertain whether they are in line with budget projections.

My colleagues that will also be talking to us this afternoon will elaborate on these matters and I’ll leave it to them to inform us in that regard.

With this brief exposition, I recommend the adoption of the report of the Joint Budget Committee’s strategic plan. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon member. That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?

HON MEMBERS: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Siyaxhasa. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Siyavuma. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Limpopo supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms F NYANDA: Mpumalanga supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mr M A SULLIMAN: Die Noord-Kaap steun dit. [The Northern Cape supports it.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Ke a rona. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE - DEPARTMENTAL HEARINGS ON APPROPRIATION BILL

Mr M O ROBERTSON: Hon Chair, hon members, the Joint Budget Committee released the comprehensive report on the departmental hearings on the Appropriation Bill. Three departments appeared before the Joint Budget Committee. The affected departments are the Departments of Public Works, Land Affairs and Health. With reference to the Department of Public Works, the following must be quoted.

The department does not budget or allocate funds for the building of schools, or the revitalisation of hospitals. Funding is provided directly to the provinces through the provincial equitable shares, and directly to provinces through conditional grants or through the national Departments of Health and Education.

Planning and delivery of classrooms have been complicated by the migration of learners between provinces and schools within the provinces. The national Departments of Public Works and Education, however, are now working together and have established the Infrastructure Delivery Improvement Programme.

The Infrastructure Delivery Improvement Programme is co-ordinated by the National Treasury and is rolled out to all provincial Departments of Education, Health and Public Works. The Joint Budget Committee was also informed that underexpenditure on provincial capital budgets was recorded for the financial year ending March 2005.

With reference to the Department of Land Affairs, the following is noteworthy. For the current financial year, 69% of the budget will be channelled to the land restitution programme. The government has set itself a target of delivering 30% of commercial agricultural land by 2014 to emerging farmers. Approximately 20,6 million hectares will have to be delivered to meet this target.

The total amount of land delivered since 1994 is 3,5 million hectares. More than a million people have benefited from land reform. Almost 59 000 restitution claims have been settled in the period March 1999 to March 2005, benefiting a 172 769 households. A total of 28 087 claims still have to settled by 2008-09.

The government of Belgium has six million euros for fast-tracking of settlement claims. Although sufficient progress has been made towards the implementation of the land policy in South Africa, obstacles still remain. The following, such as additional resources required to meet the 30% target for 2014, are still to be settled. The land summit will assist in identifying areas for policy reviews, such as the “willing-buyer, willing- seller” policy.

With reference to the Department of Health, the focus was primarily on the hospital revitalisation grant. The hospital revitalisation programme does not entail the building of new hospitals, but instead the revitalising of existing ones. The Joint Budget Committee takes pleasure in announcing that three hospitals have been completed to date. Five more will be completed in the current financial year ending March 2006. In addition, another four hospitals will be completed the following financial year ending March 2007.

The department experiences some practical difficulties in implementing the above, such as delays in appointing contractors on site, provincial capacity including technical staff, reporting and communication to and from provinces. These are the challenges that must be addressed. Lastly, on this issue, hospitals in rural areas are also areas of concern.

I must remind my fellow colleagues in the NCOP that the Freedom Charter did not end with its adoption in 1955. In fact, it is a beacon for further struggles and it sets the standards by which to judge. To give more legitimacy to the Freedom Charter, regular monitoring of expenditures by national departments and other departments becomes indispensable.

In this light I appeal to this House to adopt the report on the departmental hearing of the Appropriation Bill by the Joint Committee. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon member. That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question, and the question is that the report be adopted, as the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?

HON MEMBERS: Yes!

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Vrystaat steun. [Free State supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Mrs N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Siyavuma. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Re a dumela. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms F NYANDA: Siyayivuma. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Re amogela ka atla tse pedi. [We fully agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

  CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS ON JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE - NATIONAL AND    PROVINCIAL EXPENDITURE FROM OCTOBER TO 31 DECEMBER 2004, AND FROM APRIL
                         2004 TO MARCH 2005

Mr T RALANE: Chairperson, thank you very much. Let me share with the members two trends that we see in the expenditures. Firstly, there is consistent underspending in some national departments. Secondly, there is very high spending in some departments. The biggest concern is this thing called a “March spike”.

A March spike is a phenomenon that is unusual. All money is spent in March. In other words, consistently throughout the year departments are spending very low, about 5%, 10% or 15%. Then comes March and they spend the bulk, in other words 90% plus.

This is a very funny phenomenon we are trying to look at, because one of the problems, we think, is something called financial dumping. We are really investigating these matters as the Joint Budget Committee, in order to ascertain whether there is proper spending in all these departments.

Secondly, we do not want to apportion blame and say people are underspending. We do want to look at their own KPIs, both monthly and quarterly, so that we are able to align all these matters. Clearly, therefore, what is critical for us as a Joint Budget Committee, and even our sister portfolio and select committees, is a critical analysis of, firstly, these budgets but, secondly, the non-financial output.

Could I propose, therefore, that this House adopts these two reports? Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, hon member. Order, hon members. That concludes the 11th debate. I shall now put the question in respect with the 11th Order. The question is that the report be adopted, as the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present?

HON MEMBERS: Yes!

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declaration of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Mr M O ROBERTSON: I-Eastern Cape iyaxhasa. [Eastern Cape supports.][Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Steun. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Siyavuma. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal iyavuma. [KwaZulu-Natal agrees.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: We vote in favour, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms F NYANDA: Mpumalanga supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mr R J TAU: Re e obela tlhogo. [We agree.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

I shall now put the question in respect of the 12th order. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all the delegation heads present?

HON MEMBERS: Yes!

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Mr M O ROBERTSON: I-Eastern Cape iyaxhasa. [Eastern Cape supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: Siyavuma. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Steun. [Supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms F NYANDA: Mpumalanga supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mr R J TAU: Supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Rev P MOATSHE: Ke a rona. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Western Cape supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

The Council adjourned at 16:16.

                             __________

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Bills passed by Houses – to be submitted to President for assent

 (1)    Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 14 September
     2005:
     (i)     Judicial Matters Amendment Bill [B 2B – 2005] (National
               Assembly – sec 75).
     (ii)    Close Corporations Amendment Bill [B 6B – 2005] (National
               Assembly – sec 75).
     (iii)   Armaments Corporation of South Africa Ltd Amendment Bill
               [B 14B – 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75).
     (iv)    Defence Special Account Amendment Bill [B 15 – 2005]
               (National Assembly – sec 75).
      (v)    South African Abattoir Corporation Act Repeal Bill [B 21 –
               2005] (National Assembly – sec 75).

1. Membership of Committees

(1)    Ms L L Mabe has been elected as Co-Chairperson of the Joint
    Budget Committee with effect from 14 September 2005.

National Council of Provinces

The Chairperson

1. Message from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces in respect of Bill passed by Assembly and transmitted to Council:

(1)    Bill passed by National Assembly on 14 September 2005 and
     transmitted for concurrence:
     Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill [B 64B – 2003] (National Assembly
     – sec 75).


    The Bill has been referred to the Select Committee on Public
    Services of the National Council of Provinces.

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Public Works

   (a) Report and Financial Statements of the Independent Development Trust for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements for 2004-2005 [RP 129-2005].

2. The Minister of Science and Technology

   (a) Report and Financial Statements of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements for 2004- 2005.

3. The Minister of Trade and Industry

   (a) Report and Financial Statements of International Trade Administration Commission for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements for 2004-2005 [RP 80 – 2005].

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Education and Recreation on the Statute of the Centre for Science and Technology of the Non-Aligned Movement and Other Developing CountriesAppropriation Bill, dated 14 September 2005:

   The Select Committee on Education and Recreation, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the Statute of the Centre for Science and Technology of the Non-Aligned Movement and Other Developing CountriesAppropriation BillAppropriation Bill, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Statute.

Report to be considered.