National Council of Provinces - 26 October 2005
WEDNESDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2005 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
____
The Council met at 15:03.
The 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.
ANNOUNCEMENT
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, I wish to announce that the hon Ntwanambi, the hon Mchunu and the hon Matloahela were all sworn in as permanent delegates earlier today. [Applause.] There is one member that you may not know. Mrs Matloahela has joined the good team of the NCOP and she is from the Northern Cape.
Hon members, I also wish to announce that I am making available to the hon Council the estimated budget for the Taking Parliament to the People visit to Limpopo from 31 October to 4 November 2005, as I have undertaken to do. I am formally tabling the estimated budget in the House. It will be circulated to members. [Applause.]
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr M A MZIZI: Chairperson, I give notice that I shall move on behalf of the IFP on the next sitting day of the House:
That the Council –
(1) notes with great shock that Dipuo Mokoena took a baby to the Shoshanguve Clinic for a check-up and was turned away by a nurse because she did not bring the birth certificate of the child along;
(2) further notes that the mother had to return with the baby, without any medication or being attended to by any medical practitioner, and when she arrived home two hours later the child had died; and
(3) conveys it message of condolence to the family and urges that such unprofessional and unethical conduct of the nurse should be investigated and appropriate steps taken to curb the reoccurrence of such an incident.
Mr G R KRUMBOCK: Chairperson, I hereby give notice that I shall move at the next sitting of the Council:
That the Council – (1) notes that on 13 October 2005 an Azapo member in the NA was elected as a member of the Pan-African Parliament to represent the opposition;
(2) further notes that the majority of opposition members supported the election of the hon Joe Seremane to represent the opposition in the Pan-African Parliament; and
(3) concludes that the ANC nevertheless misused their majority in the NA to designate not only who should represent the majority party but, bizarrely, also who the opposition parties’ representative should be and therefore resolves to call on the majority party to uphold the principles of multiparty democracy in Parliament by allowing the opposition to choose their own representatives to fill positions reserved for the opposition. I so move. [Applause.]
RULING
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, in terms of Rule 491, no member while addressing the Council should pre-empt the discussion of the matter appearing on the Order Paper. Hon member, the election of the member of the Pan-African Parliament appears on the Order Paper today as the first Order. The hon member’s motion is contrary to the provisions of the Rules and cannot be proceeded with.
Mr G R KRUMBOCK: Chairperson, I respect your interpretation, but I was actually referring to the decision that was made in the NA on 13 October. I am not anticipating what is happening today. My motion actually referred to something that had already happened more than a week ago.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I have ruled on that matter. Let the Council proceed.
INTERVENTION BY MINISTER OF HEALTH
(Draft Resolution)
Mr E M SOGONI: Chairperson, I move without notice:
That the Council –
(1) commends the Minister of Health for protecting the vulnerable at the mental hospitals by taking the drastic steps of closing down the wards that were not fit for hospitalisation of our sick and, further, charging the Chief Executive Officer for neglecting the interest of the poorest of the poor; and
(2) acknowledges that this sends a clear signal to the whole health industry that the lives of our poor people are just as important as those of the rich. Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
CONGRATULATIONS TO FREE STATE CHEETAH RUGBY TEAM
(Draft Resolution)
Mr D A WORTH: Chairman, I move without notice:
That the Council –
(1) congratulates all the players and management of the Free State Cheetah Rugby Team on winning the Currie Cup last weekend;
(2) notes that -
(a) this victory confirms that it was the correct decision to award
the fifth regional team in the Super Team League to the
central region; and
(b) this is a lesson to the Blue Bulls team that nobody stays
in power forever.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
RUGBY PLAYER OF THE YEAR
(Draft Resolution)
Mr M O ROBERTSON: Chair, I move without notice:
That the Council congratulates Bryan Habana, the Springbok wing, who was last night nominated as Rugby Player of the Year and Top Try- scorer of the Year.
Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chair, I would like to move a motion printed on the Order Paper in the name of the Chairperson of the NCOP as follows:
That the Council -
(1) notes that -
(a) the decision to establish the African Peer Review Mechanism
(APRM) was taken at the founding conference of the African
Union held in Durban in 2002; and
(b) South Africa will be the eighth country to be reviewed by the
APRM;
(2) recognises that the mandate of the APRM is to ensure that the policies and practices of participating states conform to the agreed political, economic and corporate governance values, codes and standards contained in the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance;
(3) acknowledges that at a meeting at the Gallagher Estate in Midrand, Gauteng, on Wednesday 28 September 2005, representatives of the people of South Africa conducted deliberations on the process of APRM in our country and that delegates from government, business, trade unions, academia, and the entire spectrum of civil society were present;
(4) believes that every review exercise carried out under the authority of the APRM must be technically competent, credible and free of political manipulation and that these stipulations together constitute the core guiding principles of the APRM;
(5) observes that Parliament has set up joint committees to inform and engage the public in the process of the APRM;
(6) congratulates the African Union and President Thabo Mbeki for ensuring that our country plays a progressive role in the reconstruction and development of the African continent; and
(7) wishes the African Peer Review Mechanism success in its work in our country.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegate heads are present in the Chamber to cast their province’s votes. Are all the delegation heads present in the Chamber? In accordance with Rule 71 I shall first allow the provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote. Is there any province that wishes to do so? None. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do so in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour of, against or abstain. Eastern Cape?
Mr M O ROBERTSON: Support, Chair.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Vrystaat steun. [Free State supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Gauteng?
Mr S SHICEKA: Siyavuma. [We support.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal iyaxhasa. [KwaZulu-Natal supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mpumalanga?
Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Northern Cape?
Mr M C GOEIEMAN: We support.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?
Rev P MOATSHE: Ke a rona. [We support.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Wes-Kaap steun. [Western Cape supports.]
Motion agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
ELECTION OF MEMBER TO THE PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, as a result of Adv Z L Madasa, a former member of the ACDP, joining the ANC, it is necessary for Parliament to elect one member from the opposition parties to serve at the Pan-African Parliament to replace Adv Z L Madasa. I will now recognise the Chief Whip of the Council.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I hereby nominate the hon P J Nefolovhodwe to be elected as a member of the Pan-African Parliament. Thank you.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Any seconder?
Mr E M SOGONI: I second it, Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Any further nominations?
Mr A WATSON: Chair, I take pleasure in nominating the hon Joe Seremane to fill that position.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Any seconder?
Mr G R KRUMBOCK: I second the nomination of Mr W J Seremane.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Any further nominations? Hon members, two candidates have been nominated, namely P J Nefolovhodwe and W J Seremane.
I shall now put the question that, firstly, P J Nefolovhodwe be elected as member of the Pan-African Parliament, and secondly I will also put the name of W J Seremane.
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 votes. Are all delegation heads present in the Chamber?
Because there are two members we will have to vote on both the members that have been nominated. We will thus vote twice. I am going to put each name. I am advised that I must start with Mr W J Seremane. But before we vote, in accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow the provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. Is there any province that wishes to do so? None.
We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do so in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour of, against or abstain. Eastern Cape?
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Eastern Cape?
Mr M O ROBERTSON: Against, Chair.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Free State against.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Against.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal against.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo against.
Mr G R KRUMBOCK: Chairperson, on a point of order: In terms of the KwaZulu- Natal legislature’s Rules, I am advised that the NCOP committee has to meet to confirm a mandate. If they cannot agree amongst themselves, the House actually in a plenary confirms that mandate. Neither of those circumstances has taken place. Therefore there is no confirmed mandate for KwaZulu-Natal, so they may not vote in this debate.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Such mandates are for section 76 legislation and not for what we are voting on at the present moment.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, regarding that matter, as Mr Krumbock seconded Mr Watson it was not a mandate of the legislature. He just did it spontaneously.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I have ruled on that matter. Let us proceed. Mpumalanga?
Mr A WATSON: Chair, on a point of order: The Chief Whip is wrong.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mr Watson, take your seat. I have ruled on that matter. Let us continue. Mpumalanga?
Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga votes against.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Northern Cape?
Mr A WATSON: Chair, on a point of order.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: I am dealing with a motion, Mr Watson. Please take your seat.
Mr A WATSON: Chair, I rise on a point of order on the vote that has just been cast.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Let me just finish with my motion. Northern Cape?
Mr M C GOEIEMAN: Northern Cape votes against.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?
Mr Z S KOLWENI: North West votes against.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Against.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: All nine provinces have voted against the name of hon Seremane. [Applause.] I shall now put the name of Mr Nefolovhodwe.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Eastern Cape?
Mr M O ROBERTSON: Eastern Cape supports, Chair.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Free State supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Gauteng?
Mr S SHICEKA: Siyamxhasa. [Supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal iyaxhasa. [KwaZulu-Natal Supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo iyathega. [Limpopo supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mpumalanga?
Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga iyasekela. [Mpumalanga supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Northern Cape?
Mr M C GOEIEMAN: E a thega. [Supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?
Mr Z KOLWENI: North West phambili. [North West supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Wes-Kaap steun. [Western Cape supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Nine provinces voted for Mr Nefolovhodwe. [Applause.]
Mr P J Nefolovhodwe is accordingly elected as a member of the Pan-African Parliament in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, I did not want to disrupt voting time but I want to request you to call upon hon Krumbock to withdraw a word, because he said that what was happening in the House was a “farce”. This word is unparliamentary and he must withdraw it.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mr Krumbock, can you withdraw the word “farce”? It is unparliamentary.
Mr G R KRUMBOCK: Chair, I am afraid I cannot. The fact that the majority party can choose the opposition representative is a farce.
The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: If you cannot withdraw that word, can you please excuse yourself from this House for the rest of the day?
The member thereupon withdrew.
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Hon Chairperson and hon members, earlier this year in my Budget Vote address to the National Assembly I indicated government’s firm determination to realign the Road Accident Fund with its fundamental purpose, namely the provision of assistance to those injured in accidents. To succeed, we have had to assert the need for greater equity for road users against the need for the sustainability of the fund.
After two years of numerous drafts, legal and constitutional opinions and statistical analysis, the Bill was passed in the National Assembly in mid- September. This Bill that seeks the consideration of the NCOP today is markedly different from the original Bill. Its contents have been widely amended according to the considered wishes of the National Assembly.
In essence, the amendments to the Road Accident Fund Act remove unfair discrimination against passengers that has plagued our system for decades. For the first time the veil of comfort provided by the Road Accident Fund is extended to those millions, mostly poor people, who rely daily on public transport to travel to work or, indeed, even to seek work.
Those who help reduce congestion on our roads and contribute to a cleaner environment by making use of public transport and lift clubs will no longer be limited unfairly regarding protection. In order to provide this wider service it has become necessary to place certain limits on the magnitude of loss of income claims.
I am very much aware of the petition initiated a week or two ago on the Internet – itself a fundamental resources of privilege in our society – objecting to the democratic and transformative provisions of the Bill. Whilst, at one level, I can understand the frustration of those who have to accept lower levels of compensation for their levy contributions, I would urge that they acknowledge and consider appropriate personal insurance options. However, although government is able to provide a measure of support to protect the lives and livelihoods of road accident victims, we are not going to continue to subsidise unequal lifestyles in our unequal society.
There is no truth in the fantasy that the Bill imposes a blanket limit on all types of injuries. The Bill ensures fairness by shifting the focus to the primary victims of accidents as well as those seriously injured. No longer will the fund be faced with high claims from those who sustained no injuries or were not involved in an accident. No longer will legal costs be able to outstrip the compensation paid to victims. The time for opportunistic claims is over; and the time for a more social and just appreciation of the disparities in wealth and access to support from the state is upon us.
This Bill also prevents the perpetuation of inequalities in the provision of health care by introducing public health tariffs. This is done without limiting choices in treatment or restricting those who need to receive it. To ensure that accidents are responded to efficiently, allowance was made for golden hour tariffs. Again, we are aware that those who choose to receive private or international care will have to protect this right through available medical aid cover.
The amendments introduced in this Bill therefore speak to the constitutional imperative to ensure progressive realisation of the right to social security and health care; and the provision of relief without the introduction of unfair discrimination. The Bill provides for good governance and addresses the financial position of the fund by effecting savings on legal costs, medical expenses and compensation paid. But this Bill is something of a rest stop along the highway. It is not meant to address all the problems of the Road Accident Fund. It only provides some immediate measures to alleviate obvious problems.
The amendments do not change the system of compensation that continues to exclude those unable to prove fault on the part of another driver, and continues to discriminate against those unable to look after themselves after an accident. For us to address this adversarial and expensive system, which perpetuates inequities and inequalities, we will have to rethink our policy on public support to victims of road accidents. The department has prepared reports on the consequences and implication of introducing an equitable, reasonable and affordable system that provides relief to the injured and disabled. I look forward to sharing these proposals with you in the near future.
Despite its inability to solve all the problems faced by the fund, the Bill tabled here this afternoon will ensure that we are able to manage the risks faced by the fund, both in the immediate future and during the proposed restructuring. I am very certain that the department and Parliament will work together to develop a more comprehensive plan around the fund in due course.
In conclusion, the key to the sustainability of any system of compensation is the improvement of road safety. Through improved road behaviour, better enforcement and road traffic management; by increasing the use of public transport; and by ensuring appropriate use of all transport modes, we can succeed on this front. Therefore I have the honour to present the Bill to the NCOP for your kind consideration. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr R J TAU: Hon Chair, hon Minister, special delegates, colleagues and friends, it is common knowledge by now that the Urban Areas Act and the pass laws controlled the movement and residential rights of black South Africans.
Therefore, it is not surprising that vast distances are regularly and frequently travelled across South Africa by the unwilling, formerly disenfranchised of this evil, social experiment. According to Justice Wills’ report migrant labourers continue to commute between their homes and families in the former Bantustans to the urban areas where they have sought work and in which they now live.
The black peasantry from the remote and underdeveloped countryside travel to metropolitan areas for medical treatment, schooling, further education and shopping. To deal with the administrative bureaucracy black workers in urban areas commute from the former black group areas townships to factories, offices and places of employment, which are usually found in industrial and formerly white group areas.
Residents, many of them children, in black urban areas walk to and from their homes to spaza shops, crèches, schools, clinics and places of employment by day on unsafe and congested roads that lack pavements; they walk at night on roads without adequate lighting.
Therefore it is quite clear that the Bill before us today is quite a critical and important piece of legislation that comes a long way, that is, in terms of process. At the heart of it we all know that it has got to do with improving the lives of ordinary people living in the Republic.
For many years reports have been put to the public and to Parliament about the corruption that existed in the Road Accident Fund. It is also clear that, year after year, we have heard of reports about the unscrupulous people who have defrauded the fund to a point where the poor, who were mostly to have been the beneficiaries, were negatively affected in the process. This resulted in the establishment of the commission, of course, that was intended to ensure that it does a thorough investigation and recommendation of what needs to be done.
Having noted the above, from the National Household Travel Survey 2003 results, it is very clear that the majority of the South African population using our roads on a daily basis is concerned about safety on our roads. While we take note of the fact that some other factors are being raised in the survey, it becomes equally important that we observe the issues raised by our people around road safety. Therefore, it is quite clear that the majority of our people are exposed to accidents on our roads.
This Bill seeks to address some of the challenges that our people are confronted by in events where they become involved in accidents. The select committee has noted some of the fundamental issues that the Bill seeks to address in order to ensure that the fund becomes effective, self- sustainable and responds proactively and evenly to the needs of our people.
For many years, our people, in particular the poor and illiterate, have been exposed to unscrupulous lawyers who have worked tirelessly to rip off the fund by submitting false claims on behalf of the poor, and they are still getting away with that. For many years we have also read of doctors who have collaborated with some of these lawyers to put false claims against the fund, much to the disadvantage of the poor.
For many years, we have been presented with reports about the fund not being able to pay out legitimate and correct claims to deserving people, because of internal problems that the fund was experiencing as a result of lack of better management systems and proper governance of the fund.
As for public representatives and in particular those with a working-class background and who serve poor constituencies, I bet that few or none will disagree with me when I say that one of the most difficult questions that has always been put to us has been about the functioning of the Road Accident Fund. I say this precisely because the people who are using buses, taxis, bakkies, or lorries as a means of transport are the poor and the rural masses who, in most instances, are the ones who find themselves exposed to road accidents and corrupt officials who come as service providers.
With this Bill before us we feel much more empowered and better positioned to give responses to the most difficult questions put to us from now onwards. I say this because the Bill put before us today seeks to undo most of the wrong things that have bedevilled the fund for many years. Some of the things that the Bill seeks to address include the establishment of a board where the CEO has management skills - not necessarily the other things that have always been raised around what kind of CEO is needed to manage this particular fund - and to have a co-operative governance approach to the fund as contemplated in the Constitution.
It is also important for members to note that with the restructuring process of the fund we shall see a situation where the liability of the fund will be based on the tariffs for the health services provided by the public health establishments, as contemplated in the National Health Act of 2003.
At the same time it should also be noted that in the event where emergency medical treatment is provided, the fund should negotiate a reasonable tariff with the provider, of course guided by the availability of resources. It is our view that this approach will encourage the use of public institutions and it thereby seeks to strengthen and build a positive public perception about medical services as provided by public health institutions.
It is further interesting to note the fact that the Bill seeks to restructure the financial period from May to May. The committee has also noted this approach with great interest in that, at least, that will bring the financial period of the fund in line with the financial systems of the country. The alignment of the fund to the Public Finance Management Act and principles of good co-operative governance will seek to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Minister, the board, the fund and the executive of the fund.
The overall effect of the Bill will be to reduce the liabilities of the fund. This approach will see an improvement in the finances of the fund in that it is estimated that an amount of between R500 million to R1,6 billion can be saved over a period of 5 years. This will serve as a good turnaround financial strategy as opposed to the millions of rands that the fund has lost over time. We take the point that this Bill is a process in the correct direction, because that is exactly what it seeks to do, to stabilise the fund.
I raise this because, as a committee, we note some areas that need some further work to be done. One amongst the key areas is the extent to which the rural poor are going to be affected. We raised this point, informed of the fact that most accidents that occur in rural areas are mainly caused by stray animals, as opposed to accidents that happen in urban and semi-urban areas. The Bill is silent on how the rural poor are going to be covered by the fund.
It is therefore the view of the committee that some work still needs to be done in that particular area because, if not, the rural poor stand to fall out of the framework of the benefits of the intended objectives of the Bill. During the presentation we noted that areas formally earmarked for black South Africans are those least provided with modern and well- maintained transport infrastructure. There are dirt tracks; streams without bridges; unmonitored fords over rivers; potholes in single lane roads; on the absence of safety shoulders; poor and sometimes nonexistent roads signs and markings; and a lack of pavements or unpaved pedestrian areas all abound in rural areas, and especially in those urban and rural areas that were historically designated for black people.
Hence, it is not surprising that long distances are travelled by the poor and less sophisticated for which they are not exposed to public transport necessarily. We therefore as a committee also call upon the private sector to work in partnership with our government in improving the conditions of our commuter roads. We call upon, in particular, the insurance companies and medical aid schemes to make a meaningful contribution in improving these conditions instead of standing aside and complaining about the extent to which the fund takes a long time to pay their claims. That also goes for the law firms of South Africa that have benefited over many years as private service providers. They should make their positive contribution.
It must also be noted that we appreciate the role that other companies in South Africa have played in promoting road safety measures through electronic and print media. We however feel that more needs to be done for our people in the rural areas and in particular in schools as spearheaded and led by our government and the department in particular. As the chairperson of the select committee, I think it is important that I must make the point that we appreciate the role that the department has played to consistently, and on a regular basis, seek to give better clarity to members of the committee. And on the basis of that, as a committee, we support the Bill. I thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mr A WATSON: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, a friend of mine, who is a sales representative, drives home from the country trip on a Friday evening, after slogging it out in the hot Mpumalanga Lowveld, visiting potential customers and negotiating sales from early in the morning till late each day. But he is happy, because tonight, for the first time this week, he will be having supper with his wife and four children.
He will be even happier to tell them that he has had a good week, and if his sales continue along the same lines, he will be averaging more than R20 000 a month. This means that he will be able to afford next year’s school fees, new clothes for the children, and maybe even a short holiday at Loskop Dam. But his dreams are short-lived, because as he enters town, passing the country club, a drunken millionaire in a fancy, expensive, imported motorcar comes speeding out of the club grounds and crashes into my friend’s car.
My friend is very badly hurt. Bystanders try to assist my friend and others call a nearby private hospital to send out an ambulance, but the private hospital refuses to attend to a road accident because they are no longer recognised. The good Samaritans are referred to the state facilities in the town, only to be informed that they will have to wait for the ambulance, which is at the local shopping centre where the driver and medics are buying takeaways for their colleagues back at the emergency centre.
The ambulance finally arrives two hours later and transports my friend to the local hospital where no resuscitation equipment is available and where his family is informed that no state hospital in Mpumalanga is equipped with a spinal unit or a burn unit.
Although his life was saved, he is today badly scarred, totally paralysed, and unable to work. He is now paid an amount of only R9 000 a month after deduction, as compensation against that total loss of income and ability to earn for his family. The family now battles to make ends meet.
His friends urged him to sue the shirt off the drunken millionaire, but the lawyers explained that the new Act prohibits him from claiming any further from a third party whatsoever.
Whilst the latter part of my rendition is factual in many provinces like Mpumalanga - and it is, of course, a fictitious story about a fictitious friend - I pray that nothing like that really ever happens. But my friend could as well have been any one of us in this House, or any of our friends. The circumstances would be true if we passed this Amendment Bill today. This is bad legislation, to say the least.
The original Road Accident Fund replaced the old Third Party Insurance, but it was still aimed at protecting the victims of a road accident against the guilty third party. In other words, it took the place of the guilty party. The new Bill does away with it.
For this benefit motorists have paid a small contribution, all motorists, regardless of where they come from, in a form of a fuel levy, and will continue to pay this levy, but probably at a much higher rate in future, if we pass this Bill today. So, motorists will in future get far less for much more. Because of this motorists will now have to revert to very expensive private insurance, as the Minister has referred to, if they can afford it. That is the crunch.
They will still run the risk of losing medical aid benefits in case of a road accident, and on top of that they will be prohibited from any form of legal redress in the future.
It is a pity that my time is limited, because I could probably speak for another hour on the demerits of this Bill - a Bill that seeks to save a very badly run organisation from total financial ruin, but does little or nothing for those who contribute to it. Worst of all, it will render the masses in our country, who cannot afford private insurance, totally helpless.
The Minister says that they are doing away with unequal subsidies. There were no unequal subsidies. The motorists have footed the bill all along through the years. It has been bad management that has squandered the money of the Road Accident Fund.
There was no discrimination, as the Chair of the Committee referred to, because all motorists, regardless of race, creed, or affluence, were covered equally by the fund for every litre of petrol they put in, and for every kilometre they travelled. There was no inequality. The new Bill will be unequal, will do away with benefits that motorists presently have, and should have. Therefore the DA, I regret, will not support the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon members, in the preamble of the Freedom Charter, the Charter declares that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, and that no government can justifiably claim authority, unless it is based on the will of the people.
The Freedom Charter thus begins with a section of what is and has been a cardinal democratic principle, that all can live in South Africa, whatever their origin. The profound meaning of this correct assertion goes deeper than the legal recognition of citizen rights. On the one hand it means that the authority of those who govern must be derived from the will of the people, and on the other, that all of us who have a legal, legitimate claim to this country, have a responsibility to its development and progress.
The Bill before this House today is precisely aiming to address these two important issues of development and progress. The objectives of the Road Accident Fund Amendment Bill are twofold. Firstly, it is to provide for the more equitable, fair and transparent compensation system, and secondly, to improve the governance and financial position of the fund.
The Bill therefore focuses on three important principles, namely, fairness, transparency and governance. Let me first start with the fairness of the system. The Bill ensures that more compensation reaches the primary victims of road accidents by reducing the settlement costs. The Bill further protects the seriously injured, who will be able to receive compensation to help them to adjust their lives accordingly.
Key elements in this regard include the following: Firstly, the Bill introduces a medical threshold to access compensation for pain and suffering, and the loss of enjoyment of life. This ensures that the fund shall only compensate those whose are seriously injured for their losses. Those victims who have sustained slight injuries, or whose injuries are of a temporary nature will therefore only be compensated for the medical care and limited loss of income suffered.
This will decrease the liability of the fund to approximately R1,1 billion per year, and will thus allow the fund to accommodate all passengers in providing compensation. Secondly, the Bill removes the liability of the fund to compensate secondary victims who witnessed or heard of the accident. As the common law recognises the rights of secondary victims to recover damages, people in this category will be allowed to claim against offending drivers or owners through the common law process.
Currently those who have medical insurance may receive private or even international treatment at a high cost to the fund, whilst the majority of South Africans are treated in our public hospitals. The Bill now introduces a system where medical costs will be based on public health care tariffs, which will allow for greater transparency and will benefit all equally.
It is important to understand the different levels of compensation relating to income or support, health care and pain and suffering. The threshold on claims for general damages has no, and I repeat, no impact on the medical claim of any victim of road accidents. It is important to note that the future medical treatment for which there is no, and I repeat, no restrictions, includes the following areas of compensation, firstly, personal attendant care for those who are unable to cope on their own; secondly, medicines and aids such as wheelchairs which are critical to limiting disability; thirdly, transport allowance and modifications to homes or vehicles, and institutionalisation costs for those in need of special care. There are no, and I repeat, no limits introduced to claims for past and future medical treatment.
However, the Bill does introduce a public sector tariff on medical care needed. This does not prevent any victim from accessing private or even international services. However, the compensation claimable from the fund will be the public sector tariffs only.
In this regard it is important to note that 86% of the population makes use of public health care services, and hence will be able to receive compensation for all necessary and reasonable treatment. The only specific limitation is in the loss of income claims. Medical treatment is claimable by all, and those who suffer serious injuries are not limited in their claim for pain and suffering.
The weak and elitist arguments of Mr Farrow of the DA, and those of the hon Mr Watson here today, again demonstrate the true colours of the DA, in that their concerns are not really based on the well being of the previously excluded community, but primarily focus on ensuring a status quo to protect their lifestyle, at all costs, at the expense of the poor. Further, the DA’s total obsession with the perceived overempowerment of the National Minister to appoint the RAF Board and its CEO, clearly demonstrates that they have no regard for the fundamental issues of social justice, development and progress that the Bill seeks to advance.
In conclusion, although the Bill is not perfect in all aspects, it is a transitional Bill aimed at stabilising the fund to ensure the survival and sustainability of the fund and also ensures that those who were previously excluded will now also benefit from the Bill. Therefore the ANC supports the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mnu M A MZIZI: Sihlalo ohloniphekile noNgqongqoshe ohloniphekile, mhlawumbe ngingakaqali nje ngingaphawula ngezithombe ezibonakala laphaya kumabonakude ezesabisanayo - ungathi akuthina. Angimuhle-ke ezithombeni, Sihlalo. [Uhleko.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Mr M A MZIZI: Hon Chairperson and hon Minister, perhaps I need to start by talking about the horrible pictures that we see on TV. It is not like us, I do not look good in pictures.] [Laughter.]]
The Road Accident Fund has come a long way. This fund has had its ups and downs in the past. It cannot be denied that the Bill seeks to improve the governance of the fund. What is scary, however, is the limitation on liability in sections 18(1), 18(2)(a) and 19(b) of the Act in which certain claims are limited. The worst of all of them is the compensation for loss of income that is limited to a gross of R160 000, before tax, per year, not taking into account what your earnings were before the accident.
I am not convinced that much had been put into practice when the common law rights were removed or when certain common law claims were abolished. This will leave some of us as victims without any way of supporting our families or ourselves.
Okunye engikubona kuyingozi ukuthi uma ngingalimala noma ngixhwale engozini yemoto yami kungekho enye imoto engishayisane nayo, ngeke nginxeshezelwe. Umbuzo uthi ngubani okhokhayo esikhwameni ngendlela yokuthenga uphethiloli? Lokhu kungishiya nomqondo wokuthi umuntu ozuzayo yilowo oshayiswa yimoto nothole ukwethuka noma ozwe isenzo esinyantisa umzimba. Ngqongqoshe, yikho- ke okwenze iqembu leNkatha Freedom Party ukuthi lifinyelele esinqumeni esithi kuningi okungazange kufinyelelwe kukho. Izinguquko ezenziwe azizukuwusiza umphakathi odla imbuya ngothi. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[What I also view as dangerous is that I may be injured or become disabled in a car accident without being involved in a head-on collision with another car, and then I will be not compensated. The question is, who contributes to the fund in the process of buying petrol? This leaves me with the conclusion that the person who benefits is the one who is hit by a car, the one who is traumatised and the one who has heard a terrible thing. Minister, that is why the Inkatha Freedom Party has come to the conclusion that there are a lot of issues that were left hanging. The changes that have been made are not going to help poor people.]
The other factor that needs clarity is the question of medical aid versus the fund. It is not clear what criteria will be used when payment is determined for a person who is totally physically indisposed. The process is of such a nature legal knowledge is needed. The liability of the fund in respect of bodily injury to or the death of anyone will be limited in total to the amount representing the difference between the amount that that third party could have claimed from the fund or such agent.
Ngqongqoshe, ngalezi zizathu esengizibeke ngenhla ngibuye nenqina kamabuyaze lapho iqembu lithe ngeke linginike igunya lokuthi ngiwuxhase lo Mthethosivivinywa. Ngakho-ke ngiwela kulelo-ke lokuthi ngingawuxhasi njengoba ngithunyiwe. Ngalokho-ke i-IFP ngeke ikwazi ukuwuxhasa lo Mthethosivivinywa. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Minister, for the reasons that I have mentioned above, I came back empty- handed. The party said that it would not give me the authority to support this Bill. I will therefore stick to that. As instructed, I will not support it. The IFP does not support the Bill.]
Mnr F ADAMS: Agb Voorsitter van Komitees, agb Minister, agb lede en kollegas van die Huis, vandag staan ek in hierdie Huis as ’n trotse lid van die party wat omgee vir alle mense in Suid-Afrika - nie net vir ’n handjie vol mense nie, maar vir alle mense. Dit wil ek baie duidelik stel, agb mnr Watson, ek staan vandag as ’n lid . . [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr F ADAMS: Hon Chairperson of Committees, hon Minister, hon members and colleagues of this House, I am standing in this House today as a proud member of the party that cares for all the people in South Africa - not just for a few people, but for all people. I want to put this very clearly, hon Mr Watson, today I stand as a member . . . [Interjections.]]
I stand today as a member of the ANC in this House. [Applause.]
Komplekse wetgewing het nog altyd gesorg dat daar misverstande is, en daarom is dit belangrik vir ons as wetgewers om hierdie komplekse wetgewing te verstaan en te verduidelik. Dit skok my om vandag hier te sit en luister hoe ’n mens in ’n komitee saamstem met ’n wetsontwerp, maar dan hier kom staan en van trant verander. Dit gaan ’n mens se verstand te bowe dat ’n mens kan baklei en sê jy stem saam met alles, maar dan hier kom en sê jy stem nie meer saam nie. Dit verwar ons mense daar buite in Suid-Afrika.
Daarom het ons in die ou Nuwe Nasionale Party gesê ons gaan saam met die ANC, want hulle praat met een stem. Een stem! [Tussenwerpsels.] Hulle sê nie een ding daar in ’n kamer en dan gaan hulle buite en sê ’n ander ding nie. Hulle maak een wet wat almal pas, en die agb Lamoela weet dit. Sy weet dit voor haar siel dat dit die ANC is wat Suid-Afrika op ’n wenpad sit. U het dit vanmiddag in die Nasionale Vergadering gehoor. [Tussenwerpsels.] U het vanmiddag van die goeie werk wat die ANC al die jare gedoen het. [Tussenwerpsels.]
’n Mens kan sien hoe die agb Watson en Lamoela aangaan, want hierdie wetgewing het ’n impak op die arm mense, die mense wat nie kan bekostig om ’n prokureur te betaal nie. Mense soos ons, mnr Watson en mev Lamoela, wat prokureurs kan bekostig, het nie hierdie tipe wetgewing nodig nie, en dis waarom hulle teen die wetsontwerp kan gaan. [Tussenwerpsels.] Dis waarom hulle teen die wetsontwerp kan stem, maar ons kyk na ons mense. Ons kyk na ons plattelandse gebiede. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Ons weet vir ’n feit daar was prokureurs en regsgeleerdes wat ons mense uitgebuit het. [Tussenwerpsels.] Mense wag nou nog, tot vandag toe, nog steeds op eise. [Tussenwerpsels.] Tot vandag toe wag hulle nog steeds op eise. Dis darem lekker om in die ANC te wees, want ek het nou meer tyd om die DA te ontbloot!. [Gelag.] [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Complex legislation has always caused misunderstandings, and that is why it is important for us as legislators to understand this complex legislation and to explain it. I am shocked to sit here today and listen to how a person who concurred with a Bill in a committee comes here and changes his tune. It is beyond me that a person can fight and say that he agrees with everything, but then comes here and says that he no longer agrees with it. It confuses our people out there in South Africa.
That is why we, in the old NNP, said that we were going to join the ANC; because they speak with one voice. One voice! [Interjections.] They do not say something in a room and upon leaving it say something else. They make one law to suit everybody, and the hon Lamoela knows it. In her heart of hearts she knows that it is the ANC who put South Africa on the road to success. You heard about it this afternoon in the National Assembly. [Interjections.] This afternoon you heard about all the good things that the ANC has done all these years. [Interjections.]
One can see how the hon Watson and Lamoela are carrying on, because this legislation has an impact on the poor people, the people who cannot afford to pay an attorney. People like us, Mr Watson and Mrs Lamoela, who can afford attorneys, do not need this type of legislation, and that is why they can oppose this Bill. [Interjections.] That is why they can vote against this Bill, but we look after our people. We look after our rural areas. [Interjections.]
We know that it is a fact that there were attorneys and lawyers who exploited our people. [Interjections.] People are still waiting, to this day, on claims. [Interjections.] To this day they are waiting on claims. It is so good to be part of the ANC, because now I have more time to expose the DA! [Laughter.] [Applause.]]
I’ve got much more time to show South Africa that the DA is not the party to be trusted, and that the ANC is the party to be trusted. [Interjections.] Yes, that I would like to do. [Interjections.]
Dit is ’n feit dat daar nog steeds vandag prokureurs is wat ons mense . . . Daar wag nog steeds mense in my kiesafdeling op vergoeding terwyl die prokureurs sê: “Vergoeding het nog nooit plaasgevind nie, maar uit ons trustfonds leen ons vir jou hierdie of daardie bedrag.”
Hierdie wetsontwerp stel dit aan die kaak. Hierdie wetsontwerp beskerm nie net die elite nie. As die agb lid net wil ophou praat, en luister, sal sy hoor . . . [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[It is a fact that there are still attorneys today who . . . our people . . . There are still people in my constituency who are waiting for compensation, while the attorneys are saying: “Compensation has not taken place yet, but we are lending you this or that amount from our trust fund.”
This Bill shows this up. This Bill does not protect the elite only. [Interjections.] If the hon member would just stop talking, and listen, she will hear . . . [Interjections.]]
Mr A WATSON: Hon Chair, would the member take a question? [Interjections.]
Mr F ADAMS: No, Chair, the member is wasting my time. [Interjections.] That is what the DA is always good at doing: wasting time, and they are wasting my time now.
As die agb lid net wil stilbly en luister, sal sy hoor ek het gesê daar is sekere - sékere - prokureurs wat deur hierdie wetgewing vasgevat gaan word. [If the hon member would just keep quiet and listen, she would have heard that I said there are certain – certain - attorneys who would be clamped down on by this legislation.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, could the hon Mrs Lamoela respect Rule 33 of this House? Thank you.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Continue, hon member.
Mr F ADAMS: Thank you, Chief Whip.
Om te sê ’n dronkbestuurder kom 100% los is onwaar. Daar is sekere goed in hierdie wetgewing wat nog aandag moet geniet. Niks is perfek nie, maar ten minste is daar ’n poging aangewend. Ten minste kan ons vorentoe beweeg in Suid-Afrika. Ons hoef nie stil in ’n groef vasgevang te staan nie. Dit laat my dink, as ’n mens kyk na die manier hoe party rugbyspanne in Suid-Afrika rugby speel, dan moet ’n mens wonder of die manne wat rugby speel – ek sê party rugbyspanne, maar ek noem nie name nie – nie almal DA-ondersteuners is nie. Wat die DA nie kan verstaan nie, is dat die regering van die dag daar is vir alle mense. Leer dit tog. Kry dit vandag in jul koppe dat die regering van vandag nie net vir ’n sekere groepie sorg wat met dik tjekboeke en kredietkaarte rondloop nie, maar vir alle mense. Vir alle mense! [Tussenwerpsels.] Dít is vir wie die regering van die dag sorg.
Ons wil die Minister bedank daarvoor. Dankie, Minister, vir u sienswyse. Dankie vir u visie om Suid-Afrika ’n beter plek te maak. Aan u departement, en spesifiek me Marisa du Toit, wil ons sê baie dankie, want u weet, me Marisa du Toit het haar tyd geneem om hierdie wetsontwerp aan ’n komitee met die agb Watson, die agb Mzizi en almal van ons deur te trap, maar nog steeds kom staan hulle hier en maak sekere aanmerkings en aantygings. Die ANC steun hierdie wetgewing. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[It is not true to say that a drunk driver gets off 100%. There are certain things in this legislation to which attention should still be devoted. Nothing is perfect, but at least an effort has been made. We can at least move forward in South Africa. We do not have to be at a standstill, stuck in a rut. This makes me think; if you look at the way some rugby teams in South Africa play rugby you have to wonder whether the men who play rugby – I am saying some rugby teams, but I am not mentioning any names – are not all DA supporters.
What the DA cannot understand is that the government of the day is there for all people. Please learn this! Get it into your heads today that today’s government does not care only for a certain small group who is walking around with fat chequebooks and credit cards, but for all people. For all people! [Interjections.] That is for whom the government of the day cares.
We want to thank the Minister for that. Thank you, Minister, for your point of view. Thank you for your vision to make South Africa a better place. To your department, especially Ms Marisa du Toit, we want to say thank you very much, because, as you know, Ms Marisa du Toit took her time to work carefully through this Bill in a committee with the hon Watson, the hon Mzizi and all of us, but they still come and stand here, making certain comments and allegations. The ANC supports this legislation. I thank you. [Applause.]]
UNGQONGQOSHE WEZOKUTHUTHA: Sihlalo, ngiyabonga ngokuthi amalungu oMkhandlu kaZwelonke weziFundazwe ayawuxhasa lo Mthetho esiwubekayo namhlanje ngaphandle nje kwedlanzana labantu abangafuni ukwemukela lo Mthetho. Ngivumelana kakhulu nelungu elihloniphekile u-Van Rooyen othi lama lungu e- DA kungathi awafuni ukuhambisana nenqubo entsha yobuso wentando yeningi eNingizimu Afrika. Zonke lezi zinto abakhuluma ngazo bafuna ukuthi lama lungelo alaba Bantu abanezimali aqhubeke abe khona eNingizimu Afrika into lo Mthetho ofuna ukuyiqeda ukuze uquqaba lwabantu baseNingizimu Afrika lukwazi nalo ukuthi luthole ukunxeshenzelwa uma bengene ezingozini.
Umnu u-Watson ungathi uyakhohlwa ukuthi sesisembusweni wentando yeningi manje. Lo Mthetho akhulula ngawo athi wawungabandlululi kuqala, wawubandlula ngoba zazikhona lezi zinkulungwane ezingama-25 zamaRandi ewumnqamulajuqu ikakhulukazi kubantu abasebenzisa abasebenzisa izinto zokuhamba ezisetshenziswa umphakathi. Leyo nto-ke siyayazi ukuthi abantu abaningi abamnyama abagibela izinto zokuhamba ezisetshenziswa umphakathi bese-ke befakelwa lezi zinkulungwane ezingama-25 zamaRandi. Lo Mthetho-ke uyayishintsha le nto ukuze kube khona ukulingana lapha eNingizimu Afrika. Ngibuye ngaphoxwa-ke nawumfowethu-ke uMzizi ngokuhamba ne-DA. Ngithi hhayi buya ekhaya Mzizi bakufaka ehlathini laba bantu. [Uhleko.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT: Chairperson, I appreciate it that the members of the National Council of Provinces support the Bill that we tabled today, with the exception of a small group of people who do not want to accept this Bill. I fully agree with the hon Van Rooyen that the members of the DA do not want to subscribe to the new system of democracy in South Africa. All these issues they speak about are aimed at protecting and continuing the rights of the rich people in South Africa, which this Bill intends revoking so that ordinary citizens could receive compensation when they are involved in accidents.
Mr Watson forgets that we are in a democratic state. The law that he said was not discriminatory was indeed discriminatory, because it made provision for R25 000 compensation for those people who used public transport. We know that the majority of black people use public transport and are the ones who would receive this R25 000 compensation. This Bill is going to change all that and bring about some kind of equality. I have also been disappointed by the hon Mzizi for aligning himself with the DA. I want to say, no Mzizi, come back home, these people are leading you astray.] [Laughter.]]
I want to state, in conclusion, that hon members should also be aware of recent sweeping statements that have been made in the media – that the proposed caps in terms of this amending Bill will leave those injured without the necessary compensation; which has also been exemplified by what the hon Watson has just said.
I need to indicate to this NCOP that this perception has been created that, for example, a labourer, unable to work owing to a broken leg, will be left with no compensation. This, of course, is not true. The intention of introducing these thresholds and caps is to limit the growing misappropriation of funds. We have seen evidence, as highlighted by the hon Tau, of this unfair and inequitable trend in which the slightly injured claim more than the seriously injured, and high claims for income are growing at an unsustainable rate. Even those who were not involved in road accidents have been able to claim exorbitant amounts of money. So this Bill brings that to an end.
The second point I want to highlight is that owing to the impact of the proposed changes on all road users, this legislative process was supported by constitutional opinions throughout the process. The opinion of senior counsel was obtained, and we are satisfied that as the National Assembly and, of course, the NCOP that these proposed amendments are reasonable and justifiable. Similar care will also be taken to ensure that the regulations that are going to come about are also subject to the same scrutiny. Our perception at Transport is that the complaints that have been received in this regard reflect the belief that the common law provides a yardstick for constitutional rights. Understanding that the Bill of Rights should be our yardstick, we are very confident that any constitutional challenge relating to this Bill will not succeed.
Finally, the select committee of the NCOP also raised a concern relating to the powers of the executive authority in appointing the accounting authority and officer of the fund. This is a very valid concern. The Bill, however, does require a transparent process in which all the names of nominees, their nominators, the scales of the nominees and the names of those who are going to be shortlisted be made public.
We therefore believe that the strong focus on transparency will satisfy the concerns that have been raised by some of the hon members, and I do hope that the process will also be equally characterised by those high levels of engagement. I therefore wish to take this opportunity of thanking all the NCOP members, those who participated in this debate, for supporting this necessary amendment to the Road Accident Fund. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS ON OVERSIGHT VISIT TO THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK
Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson and hon members, I’m just making a statement on the report on the study tour of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs to the Kruger National Park. It is a pleasure as the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, to bring before this House the findings of our oversight visit to the Kruger National Park.
The report sets out the findings and recommendations of the delegation as they emerged from the presentation by the various officials and the on- sight tours of the facility. It also provides an analysis of issues and problems identified at the Kruger National Park and recommendations put forward by this committee. The core function of the Kruger National Park is to ensure biodiversity. Wilderness tourism, while it’s mission statement is to maintain biodiversity in all it’s natural facets and fluxes, provides for tourism and other human benefits and builds a strong constituency to preserve as far as possible the wilderness qualities and cultural resources associated with the KNP.
This endeavour focuses mainly on developing communities within the park and other stakeholders and economic development, looking also at communities outside of the park. It seeks to engage people and make them understand what is going on around them, making them aware of how they can benefit by looking after their natural environment, also through learnership programmes where students are more actively involved.
On the issue of the land question, someone says the forced relocation of Makhuleke’s community 36 years ago may have been a blessing in disguise. His people had to give up what must count as one of the most beautiful parcels of land in South Africa. It had been theirs for many generations. But in the era of white minority domination, this did not matter. The government wanted the territory, known as Phafuri, included in the Kruger National Park. They were bundled on government trucks with such belongings as they could take with them and transported to a place about 50 km away. That place must have seemed drab by comparison.
Makhuleka’s community rephrased . . . let me put it this way: we have succeeded in turning misfortune into fortune. A new game lodge has been opened on the northern bank of the Livubu River. The new facility should see a marked increase in visitors to the area, which despite its exquisite scenery of rocky hills, tall trees and extraordinarily rich variety of birds and animals, has tended to remain somewhat off the tourist map.
The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park is a merger of the Kruger National Park, Mozambique’s Limpopo National Park and Zimbabwe’s Sengwe National Park. Tourists will be able to drive across the international borders of the three countries within the boundaries of the park. We are looking forward to 2010. Scores of land owners around the Kruger National Park want the judiciary to mediate over the sales of their farms. They fear they may not realise the true value of their land, while the national body representing landless people is up in arms over the slow pace of land reform.
It is only the scientists in the Kruger National Park who say that there are too many elephants in the Kruger National Park, but other scientists don’t agree. The international fund for animal welfare says the proposed culling of thousands of elephants in the Kruger National Park to reduce numbers flies in the face of independent scientific thought, and shows a blatant disregard for credible scientific opinion.
Veterinary wildlife services form an integral function of the Kruger National Park, as they are responsible for restocking of new parks, game sales policy and strategy management, animal diseases control, problem animal treatments and research. One of the main functions of the park is the restocking and relocation of game, especially big game, to other parks.
Most of the newly-formed parks lack huge game populations, whereas the Kruger National Park has a huge game population due to the moratorium banning the culling of animals. The Kruger National Park does not only translocate animals to neighbouring and sub-Saharan countries, but also exports animals internationally to countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and the USA.
The management team of the Kruger National Park is in the process of changing the current zoning Act to comply with the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act. The fence along the Kruger National Park borders poses a unique problem, as it was initially designed to keep diseased animals from entering the Kruger National Park. The fences belong to the Department of Agriculture and have not been properly maintained for a number of years, leading to certain problems, such as animals leaving the park and entering surrounding neighbourhoods, causing property damage and sometimes death. This is becoming a problem for the Park. Poaching of elephants and rhino for commercial gain is also a major problem, as poachers enter through the broken fences.
The committee took an on-site tour of the compound and the following were their findings: The guests’ accommodation and campsites used by campers are in need of major upgrading; there is not enough accommodation suitable for individuals who are wheel-chair bound or physically disabled and there is no proper drainage system in the campsite. Ablution facilities are inadequate and need upgrading. The seven ablution facilities, serving 84 campsites, have no proper lighting and are not accessible to those who are in wheelchairs. People use the Kruger National Park as a shortcut to the neighbouring countries. Most of them overnight in the park and this also brings in revenue for the park. It was suggested that an extra fees should be charged for heavy vehicles to travel in the park, and such fees would contribute to road maintenance.
There is no adequate housing complex for ground staff. To address the problems proper infrastructure is needed to accommodate the staff. A clinic situated near the staff quarters is not enough to service all the staff in the park. Prices charged at shops in the park are exorbitant, putting local tourists at a disadvantage. The tendered contract period for businesses like restaurants and shops is too long, and this prevents local communities from taking such opportunities. Many services are outsourced, and the local communities are not given the opportunity to offer those services.
Therefore, the Kruger National Park has to be upgraded, so that as we move towards the 2010 Soccer Cup activities in South Africa we will be able to accommodate more people. We put this report before this House for acceptance. I thank you.
Mr A WATSON: Madam Chair, it’s obvious that if it weren’t for our cluster of select committees, this House would have had very little business today.
My persoonlike verbintenis met die Kruger Nasionale Park strek oor meer as 40 jaar en daar was ’n tydperk in my lewe toe ek vir sakedoeleindes feitlik elke maand in die wildtuin was, en dan het ek nog soms vakansies my gesin ook saamgeneem. Ek kan dus met reg sê dat ek die Kruger Nasionale Park goed ken. Tewens, dit was ook hierdie liefde vir daardie omgewing wat my daartoe gedryf het om my in die aangrensende natuurbewaringsdorp te vestig en om daar polities betrokke te raak.
Dit was egter self ’n hele aantal jare gelede, en my aangrensende betrokkenheid het eintlik die plek ingeneem van my vorige besoeke aan die wildtuin. Die natuur en wild aan die suidekant van die Krokodilrivier is uiteraard dieselfde as dié aan die noordekant in die Krugerwildtuin. Die nadeel van hierdie sywaartse betrokkenheid was egter dat ek die afgelope klompie jaar nie my gereelde besoeke aan die wildtuin kon voortsit nie, en intussen het ons land op alle vlakke politieke en maatskaplike veranderinge ondergaan wat uiteindelik die pad oopgemaak het vir die voorheen benadeelde gemeenskappe om ook op alle vlakke betrokke te raak - soos dit hoort.
Ek moet egter ruiterlik erken dat ek, soos baie ander mense, soms oop oë aan die slaap is en soms skielik verras word, partykeer aangenaam en partykeer minder aangenaam.
Ons komitee se kort besoek aan die Kruger Nasionale Park was een van daardie baie aangename verrassings. Ons is daar verwelkom deur ’n parkpersoneel wat ’n nuwe geslag hoogs gemotiveerde natuurbewaring- en toerismebeamptes verteenwoordig; mense wat nie net die diversiteit van ons land verteenwoordig nie, maar wat absoluut toegewyd is aan hulle taak om die natuur, die wildlewe en die infrastruktuur van die Krugerwildtuin - een van die drie toerismejuwele van ons land - volhoubaar te bestuur en ook vir toekomstige geslagte te bewaar.
Ek wil graag met my bydrae hier vandag in die annale van die Parlement laat aanteken dat ek saam met my kollegas hulde bring aan hulle almal wat onder die bekwame leiding van dr Bandile Mkhize ’n wonderlike taak verrig, nie alleen met betrekking tot bewaring en toerisme nie, maar ook met baanbrekerswerk op die gebied van veeartsenykundige navorsing wat wêreldwyd erken word.
As daar een negatiewe punt is waarna ek moet verwys, en ek dink die voorsitter het dit ook aangeraak, dan is dit die nypende tekort aan fondse, toerusting en infrastruktuur wat hierdie mense se taak bemoeilik, en ek doen dus graag ’n beroep op die betrokke departemente en ministeries om hieraan aandag te gee. Ek glo my kollega, Neels van Rooyen, hom sal weerhou van politiek, en dat hy verder sal uitbrei op hierdie belangrike saak, maar ek laat dit aan hom oor.
Kan ek net sê ons land se Inkomstediens doen uitstekende werk om meer belasting vir die land in te vorder, en ek glo ’n klein deeltjie daarvan sal ’n groot verskil maak aan die wildtuin, en aan natuurbewaring en wildbewaring in die algemeen.
’n Laaste puntjie wat ek graag wil noem, is die toestand van natuurbewaringsdorpe wat grens aan die wildtuin. Baie van hierdie dorpe is opgerig as vakansiedorpe of –gebiede, maar het die uitsluitlike doel om die natuur- en wildlewe te bewaar en te bevorder. Kom ek noem een so dorp, naamlik Marlotpark in Mpumalanga, wat die Krokodilrivier as grens met die Krugerwildtuin deel.
Die oprigtingsakte van hierdie dorp en andere maak byvoorbeeld voorsiening vir wildbestuur, natuurbestuur en bewaring, net soos in ’n wildtuin, en erwe mag byvoorbeeld nie omhein word nie, sodat wild vryelik kan rondbeweeg. Daarbenewens is meer as die helfte van die grond toegewys aan wild en nie aan woonerwe nie.
Die agb Voorsitter van hierdie Huis – hy’s nou ongelukkig nie vanmiddag hier nie – weet dat daar ’n nuwe bedeling van plaaslike bestuur in die land is. Ek was bevoorreg om saam met hom daardie wetgewing te skryf, so ek en hy weet dat daar min plek is in moderne wetgewing vir natuurbewaring, as dit kom by plaaslike regering.
Daardie wetgewing het weggedoen met meer as 600 klein dorpies en dorpe, wat opgeneem is in van ons 280 groter dorpe en metropolitaanse stede. Dorpe soos Marlotpark wat aan die wildtuin grens, en talle ander wat aan ander wildtuine en wildgebiede in ons land grens, is nou hoogstens ’n deel, as hulle gelukkig is, van ’n wyk wat hulle deel met gebiede wat deur die landbou beset word of selfs deur residensiële gebiede. Van natuurbewaring is daar min sprake, want munisipaliteite het enorme prioriteite ten opsigte van dienslewering en behuising, en hulle kan dus min aandag gee aan natuurbewaring. Tewens, hulle kan dit nie bekostig nie. Ek glo dat natuurbewaring in ieder geval nie by plaaslike regering tuishoort nie.
My beroep is dus in hierdie debat oor die besoek aan die wildtuin dat ondersoek ingestel moet word na die moontlikheid dat sulke gebiede deur die Krugerwildtuin en ander bewaringsgebiede van Sanparke gekoöpteer word of op die een of ander manier ingesluit moet word om toe te sien dat die regte bestuur daar toegepas word, dat volhoubare bewaring behoorlik nagekom word en gepaard moet gaan met die teenwoordigheid van mense wat hierdie ideale deel. As ons hierdie ideaal kan bereik, sal ons ver gaan om die ideale van ook die Kruger Nasionale Park te beskerm en uit te bou. Die mense van die Kruger Nasionale Park verdien die lof van hierdie Huis. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[My personal association with the Kruger National Park extends over more than 40 years and there was a time in my life when I visited the park virtually every month for business purposes, and on occasion in the holidays I also took my family. I can therefore rightly claim that I know the Kruger National Park well. Besides, it was also this love for that environment that inspired me to settle in the adjacent nature conservation village and to become politically involved there. That was quite a number of years ago, however, and my contiguous involvement actually replaced my previous visits to the park. The environment and wildlife on the southern side of the Crocodile River is obviously the same as that on the northern side in the Kruger Park.
The drawback of this lateral involvement, however, is that I have not been able to continue my regular visits to the park in recent years and in the interim our country has undergone political and social change at all levels that has eventually cleared the way for previously disadvantaged communities also to become involved at all levels – as is right and proper.
I must admit frankly that I, like so many other people, sometimes go through life with my eyes closed and am sometimes surprised unexpectedly, sometimes pleasantly and sometimes less pleasantly.
Our committee’s short visit to the Kruger National Park was one of those very pleasant surprises. We were welcomed there by park staff that represent a new generation of highly motivated nature conservation and tourism officials; people who not only represent the diversity of our country, but who are absolutely dedicated to their task of managing the natural environment, the wildlife and the infrastructure of the Kruger Park
- one of the three gems of tourism of our country - in a sustainable manner and also to preserve it for future generations.
By means of my contribution here today, I would like it to be recorded in the Parliamentary annals that my colleagues and I pay homage to those who, under the competent leadership of Dr Bandile Mkhize, fulfil a wonderful task, not only with regard to conservation and tourism, but also through ground-breaking work in the sphere of research in veterinary science that is acknowledged throughout the world.
If there is one negative aspect to which I must refer, and I think the chairperson has also touched on it, it would be the acute shortage of funds, equipment and infrastructure that impedes the work of these people, and I therefore gladly request the relevant departments and Ministries to devote attention to this. I believe my colleague, Neels van Rooyen, will refrain from politicking and that he will further elaborate on this important matter, but I shall leave that to him.
May I just say that our country’s Revenue Service does outstanding work to collect more taxes for the country and I believe that a small part of that will make a great difference to the game reserve, and to nature conservation and wildlife conservation in general.
A last point I should like to mention is the conditions in the nature conservation villages that border on the park. Many of these villages were erected as holiday resorts or areas, but have the exclusive purpose of conserving and promoting the environment and wildlife. Allow me to mention one such a village, namely Marlot Park in Mpumalanga, which shares the Crocodile River as boundary with the Kruger Park.
The memorandum of association of this village and others makes, for example provision for wildlife management, environmental management and conservation just as in the park, and plots may, for example, not be fenced, so that wildlife may roam freely. Besides that, more than half the land has been allocated to wildlife and not to residential plots.
The hon Chairperson of this House – unfortunately he is not here this afternoon – knows that there is a new dispensation in local management in this country. I was privileged to write that legislation with him, so he and I know that there is little room in modern legislation for nature conservation where local government is concerned.
That legislation did away with more than 600 little villages and towns, which have been incorporated into some of our 280 larger towns and metropolitan cities. Villages like Marlot Park that border on the park and many others that border on other parks and wildlife areas in our country are now – at most, if they are lucky - part of a ward they share with areas that are occupied by agriculture or even by residential areas. There is little indication of nature conservation, because municipalities have enormous priorities with regard to service delivery and housing, and therefore they cannot devote much attention to nature conservation. In fact, they cannot afford it. I believe that in any event nature conservation does not belong with local government.
My appeal in this debate about the visit to the park is, therefore, that the possibility of either co-opting or in one way or another including such areas into the Kruger Park and other conservation areas of Sanparks, be investigated to ensure that the correct management be applied there, that sustainable conservation be properly enforced and that it be accompanied by the presence of people who share these ideals. If we can attain this ideal, we will be well on our way to protecting and to expanding the ideals of the Kruger National Park. The people of the Kruger National Park deserve the praise of this House. Thank you.]
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Hon Chairperson, hon members, in his address to the NCOP in KwaZulu-Natal in 2004, President Thabo Mbeki threw down the gauntlet to the NCOP to spend more time on oversight activities in provinces in an attempt to fast-track delivery.
The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs undertook an oversight visit to the Kruger National Park from 2 March to 5 March this year, with the objectives of ascertaining, amongst other things, the role the park plays in uplifting the local and surrounding communities and the preparedness of the park to accept the influx of tourists during the 2010 World Cup, as well as to assess the general working conditions of employees in the park.
May I, at the outset, raise my concern about the absence of officials from the national department and the SA National Parks Board from this important debate on the oversight visit to the Kruger National Park by the select committee.
Let me first congratulate the management of the Kruger National Park on receiving prestigious Professional Management Review awards for being the best organisation within the tourism sector in Mpumalanga. Rated by Mpumalanga businesses, business associations, local and provincial government, as well as trade unions, the Professional Management Review awards included a diamond award for game parks and a gold award for Kruger Park’s consistent contribution to black economic empowerment in the province of Mpumalanga. These awards are given to companies that did the most to enhance Mpumalanga’s economic growth and development.
Indeed, the Kruger National Park is a world-class tourist destination and a resource that all South Africans can be proud of. The high level of professionalism and diligence with which the staff at all levels execute their tasks exemplifies the sort of perception that should be a yardstick for all public servants. Again, I would like to congratulate them on setting these high standards.
However, the declining and ageing infrastructure at Skukuza Camp is a matter of great concern and impacts negatively on staff operations and tourists’ experiences. Visitor stats for the 12 months ending March 2004 indicate an alarming, declining trend. Unit nights sold declined from 353 982 the previous year to 352 195, and guests to the park declined from 1 336 981 the previous year to 1 285 251. On-sight inspection at Skukuza of available tourist accommodation, including camping sites, confirmed the declining nature of all categories of tourist accommodation.
In view of the current pricing structure, it seems that both local and international tourists are currently finding it difficult to perceive value for their money from the tourist experience offered.
During a private visit to Skukuza, I also experienced the bad state of repair of equipment in one of the luxury accommodation units. On arrival, the fridge was not working; the TV set was not functioning properly, and two power failures were experienced owing to poor electrical connections in the unit.
An area of great concern to the select committee was the state of staff accommodation in that staff have to live in small one-roomed units. After 11 years of our new democracy it is totally unacceptable for people to still be subjected to what is clearly apartheid type of accommodation. It is obvious that a lot still needs to be done to upgrade all the categories of accommodation, including the accommodation of staff before the 2010 World Cup.
At an operating loss of R22 million for the 2004-05 financial year, it will require that the national department rethink its current funding model to the board to ensure the upgrading of infrastructure and accommodation facilities. We cannot accept a situation in which private tourists’ accommodation is subject to a grading system, whereas the department’s accommodation is currently falling short of achieving any grading by the National Grading Authority.
The high prices charged by outsourced restaurants and retail facilities within the park also need mentioning, since it seems that these institutions base their pricing policy and strategies on the overseas tourist and totally disregard the local tourist’s disposable income. Clearly, prices cannot be dictated by the park. However, the contract period of outsourcing needs to be looked at again since it creates a monopolistic environment within the park, which leads to unrealistic pricing policies by the current contract holders.
The commercialisation programme of the park seems to favour contract holders of the retail facilities inside the park at the cost of the surrounding communities. The latter are restricted to trading outside the park. Their clientele consists of travelling tourists in a hurry to reach the park. On the other hand, the retailers inside the park have the luxury of a captive market.
This unfair monopolistic situation must be addressed as a matter of urgency to ensure that the local communities also receive their fair and promised share of the lucrative craft industry, which, in most cases, is their sole source of income. This is not simply a case of fairness, but also of good economics. Fair competition has never done the consumer any harm.
In conclusion, I wish to extend my thanks to the staff at Skukuza for their kind assistance during our visit. The Kruger National Park is truly a national natural wonder that should be the pride and joy of every South African. To become that it must be affordable to every domestic tourist, bring benefit to the surrounding community and become a sought-after employer. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism holds the key to this ideal. I trust that they will take up the challenge of creating a perfect tourist experience, which will benefit all. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Report be adopted.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether 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 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. The delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour of 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: Vrystaat steun. [Free State supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Gauteng iyaxhasa. [Gauteng supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?
Mr H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo steun. [Limpopo supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?
Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga ke a rona. [Mpumalanga supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?
Mr C M GOEIEMAN: Noord-Kaap steun. [Northern Cape supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?
Rev P MOATSHE: We support.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Supports.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All nine provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the Report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS ON REMUNERATION OF MR H W MOLDENHAUER, FORMER CHIEF MAGISTRATE, PRETORIA
Mnu S SHICEKA: Sihlalo, manje yimina ozophetha imbenge. Yimina ogoqayo kule nkulumo-mpikiswano yanamhlanje. Ngizoqala ngokuthi ngithanda ukwamukela amalungu amasha kulo Mkhandlu oguquka nomama uNtwanambi. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Mr S SHICEKA: Chairperson, I am going to do the conclusion. I am doing the summary of today’s debate. Firstly, I would like to welcome the new members to the Council, including Mrs Ntwanambi.]
The Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs, having considered a report on the determination of the Magistrates Commission to withhold Mr H W Moldenhauer’s remuneration tabled by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of section 13(4A)(b) of the Magistrates Act of 1993, reports as follows.
The select committee noted that on 10 March 2003 the Magistrates Commission provisionally suspended magistrate Moldenhauer from office in terms of section 13(3)(a) of the Magistrates Act of 1993. Section 13(3)(a) in particular was amended with effect from 1 November 2003. The Magistrates Commission used that section when it suspended magistrate Moldenhauer. The power, therefore, to suspend a magistrate didn’t rest or was not vested in the Magistrates Commission. That power, from 1 November 2003, is vested in the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development. Of course, that happened with the advice of the Magistrate’s Commission.
We further noted that the Magistrates Commission on 3 March 2005 determined to withhold Mr Moldenhauer’s remuneration, in terms of section 13(4A) of the Act. However, in terms of section 13(4A)(a) of the Act, the commission would only be in a position to make such a determination in respect of a magistrate who is under provisional suspension in terms of section 13(3)(a), that is provisional suspension effected by the Minister.
What this means is that in terms of this Act, the commission didn’t have the power to suspend Mr Moldenhauer – and not only not to suspend him but also did not have the power to withhold his salary. That power was vested in the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development. In terms of this it means the process that was followed by the Magistrates Commission was flawed. In that case, it means they assumed power that was not theirs. You can imagine the lawyers and magistrates who sit in that commission doing that.
Maybe they could argue that, alternatively, if it is argued that the reference in section 13(4A) to section 3(a) of the act should be interpreted to include a magistrate suspended in terms of section 13(3)(a) of the Act prior to its amendment, as the commission apparently did when taking its decision in terms of section 13(4A)(a) of the Act, Mr Moldenhauer should have been entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 13(3(e) of the Act. I want to quote this section. It says:
The provisional suspension of a magistrate in terms of paragraph (a)
lapses after 60 days from the date of suspension, unless the
commission, within that period, commences its inquiry into the
allegation in question by causing a written notice containing the
allegation concerned to be served on the magistrate.
Consequently, Mr Moldenhauer’s provisional suspension, which was affected on 10 March 2003, should have automatically lapsed in June 2003. If you use arithmetic – you know, the old mathematics – you would say that sixty days, beginning from March, would lapse in June 2003.
The inquiry commenced on 7 April 2005. This means it commenced two years after that thing had happened. In such a case the Magistrates Commission could not have determined to withhold Mr Moldenhauer’s salary during March 2005 since, technically, he would not have been under suspension at that time. In terms of section 13(4A)(c) of the Magistrates Act, Parliament, as soon as it is reasonably possible, should consider the report tabled by the Minister and pass a resolution as to whether or not the determination made by the Magistrates Commission is confirmed either with or without amendment, or set aside.
The select committee is of the opinion that the commission could not have taken the decision in terms of section 13(4A)(a) of the Act and, accordingly, recommends that the House resolves to set aside the determination by the Magistrates Commission to withhold Mr Moldenhauer’s remuneration. Because of procedural fairness, the case is determined on two issues: substantive fairness and procedural fairness. In this case, the Magistrates Commission has erred on procedure. Therefore in terms of professional fairness, this matter is set aside. That’s what we recommend to the House.
Now, we must ask ourselves: Who is this Moldenhauer? Who is this gentleman? This gentleman was the chief magistrate in Mpumalanga. [Interjections.] You can hear that that hon member agrees. He moved to Pretoria, which is now called Tshwane. When he arrived in that area he made huge strides in transforming the judiciary. He caused a lot of improvements in the courts in that area. That caused a lot of divisions within the judiciary, and the old establishment did not particularly like him. The new people who are for transformation liked what he did.
Now it might be possible that these actions that were done in violation of the law were based on his transformatory agenda and transformatory mind. The democratic Parliament is setting aside the wrong deeds that were committed at that time. The question that we must ask ourselves is: Where is Mr Moldenhauer now? Because the environment in which he worked was not too good, due to what all of us know – that is the transformation of the judiciary, and at the same time the fact that he had ill-health, he was boarded on medical grounds. He is no longer part of the judiciary. However, we are saying that he must be paid his money back. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: 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 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 declaration of votes 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 of or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Mr M O ROBERTSON: Eastern Cape is in favour. The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?
Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Free State is in favour.
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?
Mr E M SOGONI: Makayithole imali yakhe uMoldenhauer. [Moldenhauer must be given his money.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu Natal?
Mr Z C NTULI: IkwaZulu-Natali iyawuxhasa. [KwaZulu-Natal supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?
Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo ea thega. [Limpopo supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?
Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga steun. [Mpumalanga supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?
Mr M C GOEIEMAN: Kapa-Bokone ea amogela. [Northern Cape supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West? Rev P MOATSHE: Ke ya rona. [Supports.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?
Mr N J MACK: Die Wes-Kaap steun. [The 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.
Hon members, we have noted the problem regarding the screens. The matter was reported to the IT section by procedural officers. I didn’t raise that question before because that would have caused havoc in this House, that is the manner in which members of this House were appearing on the screen. As I look at the screen, it seems that I am not myself! We apologise for that.
The Council adjourned at 16:58. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
MONDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2005
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- Introduction of Bills
(1) The Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs
i) Genetically Modified Organisms Amendment Bill [B 34 – 2005]
(National Assembly – sec 75) [Bill and prior notice of its
introduction published in Government Gazette No 27913 of 26
August 2005.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on
Agriculture and Land Affairs of the National Assembly, as well as
referral to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification
in terms of Joint Rule 160, on 18 October 2005.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bill may be submitted to the JTM within three parliamentary
working days.
TUESDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2005
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
-
Assent by President in respect of Bills
1) Defence Special Account Amendment Bill [B 15 – 2005] – Act No 18 of 2005 (assented to and signed by President on 4 October 2005).
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Trade and Industry
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 32 – Department of Trade and Industry for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 32 for 2004-2005.
b) Report and Financial Statements of Trade and Investment South Africa for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005.
c) Report and Financial Statements of Support Program for Industrial Innovation (SPII) for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005.
d) Report and Financial Statements of the Technology and Human Resources for Industry Programme (THRIP) for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005. e) Report of the National Industrial Participation Programme 2005.
WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2005
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Reintroduction of Bills
(1) The Minister of Minerals and Energy
Electricity Regulation Bill [B 29 – 2005 (Reintroduced)] (National
Assembly – sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior notice of
its introduction published in Government Gazette No 27984 of 31
August 2005.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and
Energy of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the Joint
Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160,
on 20 October 2005.
THURSDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2005
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Introduction of Bills
(1) The Minister of Health
i) Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Amendment Bill [B 35 –
2005] (National Assembly – sec 76) [Explanatory summary of Bill
and prior notice of its introduction published in Government
Gazette No 28106 of 14 October 2005.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Health of
the National Assembly, as well as referral to the Joint Tagging
Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160, on
21 October 2005.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bill may be submitted to the JTM within three parliamentary
working days.
2) The Minister for Provincial and Local Government
(i) Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal Bill [B 36 –
2005] (National)
Assembly – sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior
notice of its introduction
published in Government Gazette No 28063 of 23 September 2005.]
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Provincial
and Local Government of the National Assembly, as well as referral
to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms
of Joint Rule 160, on 21 October 2005.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bill may be submitted to the JTM within three parliamentary
working days.
-
Draft bills submitted in terms of Joint Rule 159
(1) South African Red Cross Society Bill, 2005, submitted by the Minister of Health on 20 October 2005. Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Health and the Select Committee on Social Services.
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Trade and Industry
a) Government Notice No R.431 published in Government Gazette No 27560
dated 13 May 2005: Standards Matters in terms of the Standards Act,
1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
b) Government Notice No R.518 published in Government Gazette No 27615
dated 3 June 2005: Import Control in terms of the International
Trade Administration Act, 2002 (Act No 71 of 2002).
c) Government Notice No R.567 published in Government Gazette No 27685
dated 24 June 2005: Proposed introduction of a compulsory
specification for replacement elastomeric cups and seals for
hydraulic brake actuating cylinders for use in motor vehicles using
non-petroleum base hydraulic brake fluid, in terms of the Standards
Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
d) Government Notice No 641 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Lafarge Gypsum
(Pty) Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of
1962).
e) Government Notice No 642 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Nampak Metal
Packaging Limited – Bevcan, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962
(Act No 58 of 1962).
f) Government Notice No 643 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Pulp United (Pty)
Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962).
g) Government Notice No 644 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Nampak Products
Limited – Corrugated Flexographic Printing Project, in terms of the
Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962).
h) Government Notice No 645 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Sud-Chemie SA
(Pty) Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of
1962).
i) Government Notice No 646 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Trident Steel
(Pty) Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of
1962).
j) Government Notice No 647 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: UCAR South Africa
(Pty) Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of
1962).
k) Government Notice No 648 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Duys Engineering
(Pty) Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of
1962).
l) Government Notice No 649 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Duys Engineering
(Pty) Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of
1962).
m) Government Notice No 650 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: MOLT Fruit
Processing (Pty) Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No
58 of 1962).
n) Government Notice No 651 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Silicon Technology
(Pty) Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of
1962).
o) Government Notice No 652 published in Government Gazette No 27750
dated 1 July 2005: Strategic Industrial Project: Pulp United (Pty)
Ltd, in terms of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act No 58 of 1962).
p) Government Notice No 602 published in Government Gazette No 27713
dated 1 July 2005: Companies and Intellectual Property Registration
Office – Amendment of Regulations, in terms of the Designs Act,
1993 (Act No 195 of 1993).
q) Government Notice No 603 published in Government Gazette No 27713
dated 1 July 2005: Companies and Intellectual Property Registration
Office – Amendment of Regulations, in terms of the Trade Marks Act,
1993 (Act No 194 of 1993).
r) Government Notice No 604 published in Government Gazette No 27713
dated 1 July 2005: Companies and Intellectual Property Registration
Office – Amendment of Regulations, in terms of the Patents Act,
1978 (Act No 57 of 1978).
s) Government Notice No 605 published in Government Gazette No 27713
dated 1 July 2005: Companies and Intellectual Property Registration
Office – Amendment to Companies Administrative Regulations, in
terms of the Companies Act, 1973 (Act No 61 of 1973).
t) Government Notice No 606 published in Government Gazette No 27713
dated 1 July 2005: Companies and Intellectual Property Registration
Office – Amendment of Regulations, in terms of the Registration of
Copyright in Cinematograph Films Act, 1977 (Act No 62 of 1977).
u) Government Notice No 607 published in Government Gazette No 27713
dated 1 July 2005: Companies and Intellectual Property Registration
Office – Amendment to Close Corporations Administrative Regulations
- 1984, in terms of the Electronic and Communications and
Transactions Act, 2002 (Act No 25 of 2002).
v) Government Notice No 655 published in Government Gazette No 27735
dated 8 July 2005: Standards Matters in terms of the Standards Act,
1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
w) Government Notice No 1099 published in Government Gazette No 27735
dated 8 July 2005: Notices of initiation of investigation into the
alleged dumping of detonated fuses and delay detonators (commonly
known as shock tubes), originating in or imported from the Peoples
Republic of China, in terms of the International Trade
Administration Commission of South Africa.
x) Government Notice No 1100 published in Government Gazette No 27735
dated 8 July 2005: Customs and Excise Tariff applications: List
9/2005 in terms of the International Trade Administration
Commission of South Africa.
y) Government Notice No R.622 published in Government Gazette No 27762
dated 8 July 2005: Amended Safeguard Regulations in terms of the
International Trade Administration Act, 2002 (Act No 71 of 2002).
z) Government Notice No 766 published in Government Gazette No 27846
dated 5 August 2005: Standards Matters in terms of the Standards
Act, 1993 (Act No 29 of 1993).
aa) Government Notice No R.779 published in Government Gazette No 27847
dated 5 August 2005: Amendment in terms of the International Trade
Administration Commission of South Africa.
FRIDAY, 21 OCTOBER 2005
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Council of Provinces
- Referrals to Committees of papers tabled
1. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Social Services for consideration and report:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the National Development
Agency (NDA) for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 197-
2005].
2. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Labour and Public Enterprises for consideration and report:
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 27 – Department of
Communications for 2004-2005, including the Report of the
Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 27 for 2004-
2005 [RP 212-2005].
3. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Education and Recreation for consideration and report:
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Windybrow Centre
for the Arts for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-
General on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005.
(b) Report and Financial Statements of the Pan South African
Language Board (PanSALB) for 2004-2005, including the Report
of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2004-
2005 [RP 205-2005].
4. The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on
Security and Constitutional Affairs:
a) Proclamation No R.47 published in Government Gazette No 27986
dated 31 August 2005: Amendment of Regulations, in terms of the
Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act, 1997 (Act
No 103 of 1997).
5. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Finance:
a) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic of
South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Decentralised Development Programme,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Decentralised Development Programme.
(c) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Promotion of Rural Livelihoods in
Eastern Cape Province Project, tabled in terms of section
231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(d) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Promotion of Rural Livelihoods in Eastern Cape Province
Project.
(e) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Training and Support for Natural
Resource Management (Transform) Project, tabled in terms of
section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(f) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Training and Support for Natural Resource Management
(Transform) Project.
(g) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Broadening Agricultural Services and
Extension Delivery Project, tabled in terms of section 231(3)
of the Constitution, 1996.
(h) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Broadening Agricultural Services and Extension Delivery
Project.
(i) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Training System for Education, Training
and Development Practitioners (ETDP SETA) Project, tabled in
terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(j) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Training System for Education, Training and Development
Practitioners (ETDP SETA) Project.
(k) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Trade and Industrial Policy Secretariat
(TIPS) Consultancy Project, tabled in terms of section 231(3)
of the Constitution, 1996.
(l) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Trade and Industrial Policy Secretariat (TIPS) Consultancy
Project.
(m) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning Assistance for the National Housing Finance
Corporation (NHFC) Programme, tabled in terms of section
231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(n) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning
Assistance for the National Housing Finance Corporation (NHFC)
Programme.
(o) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Municipal Finance Management Programme,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(p) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Municipal Finance Management Programme.
(q) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Provincial Administration Support
Programme in the Eastern Cape, tabled in terms of section
231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(r) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Provincial Administration Support Programme in the Eastern
Cape.
(s) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Vocational Education and training Fund
Project, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(t) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Vocational Education and training Fund Project.
(u) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Urban Upgrading and Development
Programme, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(v) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Urban Upgrading and Development Programme.
(w) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Planning and Implementation Management
Support Systems for Municipalities Programme, tabled in terms
of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(x) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Advisory Support for the Consolidation of the Mpumalanga
Provincial Administration Project.
(y) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany concerning the Basic Employment and Skills Training
Programme in the Free State and Eastern Cape Provinces, tabled
in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(z) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the
Basic Employment and Skills Training Programme in the Free
State and Eastern Cape Provinces.
(aa) Exchange of Letters between the Government of the Republic
of South Africa and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway
regarding Mutual Assistance between their Customs
Administrations, tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the
Constitution, 1996.
(bb) Explanatory Memorandum on the Exchange of Letters between
the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Kingdom of Norway regarding Mutual
Assistance between their Customs Administrations.
(cc) Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Government of the Republic of Turkey regarding
Mutual Assistance between their Customs Administrations,
tabled in terms of section 231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
(dd) Explanatory Memorandum on the Agreement between the
Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government
of the Republic of Turkey regarding Mutual Assistance between
their Customs Administrations.
(ee) Government Notice No R.794 published in Government Gazette
No 26868 dated 12 August 2005: Determination of amounts for
purposes of the Act, in terms of the Military Pensions Act,
1976 (Act No 84 of 1976).
(ff) Government Notice No R.860 published in Government Gazette
No 27976 dated 2 September 2005: Determination of limit on
amount of remuneration for purposes of determination of
contribution in terms of section 6, in terms of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 2002 (Act No 4 of 2002).
6. The following papers are referred to the Select Committee on
Economic and Foreign Affairs:
a) Trade and Economic Agreement between the Republic of South
Africa and the Republic of Turkey, tabled in terms of section
231(3) of the Constitution, 1996.
b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Trade and Economic Agreement
between the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of
Turkey.
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Home Affairs
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Film and Publication
Board for 2003-2004,
including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial
Statements for 2003-2004 [RP 158-2004].
- The Minister of Trade and Industry (a) Additional Protocol to the Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) between the Republic of South Africa and the European Community (EC) and its member states, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996.
(b) Explanatory Memorandum to the Additional Protocol to the Trade,
Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) between the Republic
of South Africa and the European Community (EC) and its member
states.
MONDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2005
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
-
The Minister of Trade and Industry
(a) Report and Financial Statements of the Estate Agency Affairs Board for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005.
-
The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE) for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005 [RP 120-2005].
TUESDAY, 25 OCTOBER 2005
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Membership of Committees
1) Mr S D Montsitsi has been elected as Chairperson of the Joint
Standing Committee on Defence with effect from 21 October 2005.
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Finance
(a) Medium Term Budget Policy Statement 2005 [RP 201-2005].
Referred to the Joint Budget Committee and the Portfolio Committee
on Finance for consideration and report in accordance with their
respective mandates.
i) Adjustments Appropriation Bill, 2005 [B37-2005].
Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance for
consideration and report.
(b) Adjusted Estimates of National Expenditure 2005 [RP 202-2005], which includes:
1. Memorandum on Vote No 1 - "The Presidency", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-
2006;
2. Memorandum on Vote No 2 - "Parliament", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
3. Memorandum on Vote No 3 - "Foreign Affairs", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-
2006;
4. Memorandum on Vote No 4 - "Home Affairs", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
5. Memorandum on Vote No 5 - "Provincial and Local
Government", Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
6. Memorandum on Vote No 6 - "Public Works", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
7. Memorandum on Vote No 7 - "Government Communications and
Information System", Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
8. Memorandum on Vote No 8 - "National Treasury", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
9. Memorandum on Vote No 9 - "Public Enterprises",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
10. Memorandum on Vote No 10 - "Public Service and
Administration", Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
11. Memorandum on Vote No 11 - "Public Service Commission",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
12. Memorandum on Vote No 12 - "South African Management
Development Institute", Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
13. Memorandum on Vote No 13 - "Statistics South Africa",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
14. Memorandum on Vote No 14 - "Arts and Culture", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
15. Memorandum on Vote No 15 - "Education", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
16. Memorandum on Vote No 16 - "Health", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
17. Memorandum on Vote No 17 - "Labour", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
18. Memorandum on Vote No 18 - " Social Development",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
19. Memorandum on Vote No 19 - "Sport and Recreation South
Africa", Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
20. Memorandum on Vote No 20 - "Correctional Services",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
21. Memorandum on Vote No 21 - "Defence", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
22. Memorandum on Vote No 22 - "Independent Complaints
Directorate”, Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
23. Memorandum on Vote No 23 - " Justice and Constitutional
Development ", Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
24. Memorandum on Vote No 24 - " Safety and Security",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
25. Memorandum on Vote No 25 - " Agriculture", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
26. Memorandum on Vote No 26 - "Communications", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
27. Memorandum on Vote No 27 - " Environmental Affairs and
Tourism", Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
28. Memorandum on Vote No 28 - "Housing", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
29. Memorandum on Vote No 29 - "Land Affairs", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
30. Memorandum on Vote No 30 - " Minerals and Energy",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
31. Memorandum on Vote No 31 - "Science and Technology",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
32. Memorandum on Vote No 32 - "Trade and Industry",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2006;
33. Memorandum on Vote No 33 - "Transport", Adjustments
Estimates, 2005-2006;
34. Memorandum on Vote No 34 - "Water Affairs and Forestry",
Adjustments Estimates, 2005-2005;
Referred to the Portfolio Committee on Finance for consideration and
report.
-
The Minister of Defence
a) Report and Financial Statements of Vote 22 – Department of Defence for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor- General on the Financial Statements of Vote 22 for 2004-2005 [RP 159-2005].
-
The Minister of Labour
a) Report and Financial Statements of the Umsobomvu Youth Fund (UYF)
for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on
the Financial Statements for 2004-2005.
WEDNESDAY, 26 OCTOBER 2005
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
The Speaker and the Chairperson
- Bill returned to Executive
(1) On 25 October 2005 the Acting Speaker and the Chairperson, after
consultation, referred the Diamonds Amendment Bill [B 27 – 2005],
introduced in the National Assembly as a section 75 Bill on 30
August 2005, back to the Minister of Minerals and Energy, as it
contains both section 75 and section 76 provisions.
- Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
(1) The JTM on 25 October 2005 in terms of Joint Rule 160(3),
classified the following Bill as a section 74 Bill:
(i) Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill [B 33 – 2005]
(National Assembly – sec 74)
(2) The JTM, on 25 October 2005 in terms of Joint Rule 160(3),
classified the following Bills as section 75 Bills:
(i) Independent Communications Authority of South Africa
Amendment Bill [B 32 – 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75)
(ii) Genetically Modified Organisms Amendment Bill [B 34 –
2005] (National Assembly – sec 75)
(iii) Cross-boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal Bill [B 36 –
2005] (National Assembly – sec 75)
- Introduction of Bill
(1) The Minister of Finance
(i) Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 37 – 2005] (National
Assembly – sec 77)
Introduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Finance of
the National Assembly, as well as referral to the Joint Tagging
Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160, on
25 October 2005.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of
the Bill may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)
within three parliamentary working days.
- Reintroduction of Bill
(1) The Minister of Minerals and Energy
Diamonds Amendment Bill [B 27 – 2005 (Reintroduced)] (National
Assembly – sec 75) [Explanatory summary of Bill and prior notice of
its introduction published in Government Gazette No 27929 of 19
August 2005.]
Reintroduction and referral to the Portfolio Committee on Minerals and
Energy of the National Assembly, as well as referral to the Joint
Tagging Mechanism (JTM) for classification in terms of Joint Rule 160,
on 26 October 2005.
In terms of Joint Rule 154 written views on the classification of the
Bill may be submitted to the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) within three
parliamentary working days.
TABLINGS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- The Minister of Trade and Industry
a) Group Annual Financial Statements of the National Empowerment Fund for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
National Council of Provinces
-
Report of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs on the International Plant Protection Convention, dated 26 October 2005:
The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, having considered the request for approval by Parliament of the International Plant Protection Convention, referred to it, recommends that the Council, in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, approve the said Convention.
Report to be considered.